Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension

NPA:External Links should be removed for the moment

Once the arbitration is concluded, the disputed section should be removed from the policy page. Maybe it would be a good policy, maybe it wouldn't-- but as of this moment, it clearly isn't policy-- i.e. it is highly disputed, and is not, in its current form, not supported by consensus. --Alecmconroy 01:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you had the chance to read my recent re-write? Privatemusings 01:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you added is true enough "Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is controversial, discouraged, and many editors consider it to be in violation of this policy." But the remainder of the section just reiterates BADSITES basically, and doesn't have consensus.

Not to debate what the policy should be here-- but whatever it should be, it doesn't seem like the current text truly has consensus. There's widespread argument, edit waring, and arbitration over the text-- it doesn't have consensus right now, it isn't part of Wikipedia policy, and we should get it off the page until there's some policy that DOES have consensus.

When a policy on external harassment does achieve consensus, it makes sense to summarize it here. But first you get consensus for a policy change, then you institute it / incorporate it in pages that are listed as Policy. Inserting something that doesn't yet have consensus and then edit warring over it-- that's not the way to do it.

Granted, while arbcom is in progress, it makes sense to freeze the page. But I think we can safely predict that the arbcom decision isn't going to be one which makes this text have consensus. On the other hand, maybe BADLINKS will have achieved consensus by then, in which case we can just change the text here accordingly. --Alecmconroy 03:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the above, i've removed the section. Primairly my motivation is to encourage participation in, and discussion of, the new policy page. Privatemusings 08:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. The content has been there for a long time and there has been little input or discussion about this removal. I'm going to restore the material pending a more significant consensus to remove it. Its presence should not affect the ongoing drafting at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, and if this material is superceded by another policy then obviously it will be removed at that time. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know where consensus was formed to add the section in the first place? Could you link it for us? Not trying to be contrary, I'm actually unaware. Picaroon (t) 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware offhand. But I do see that the text has been here since April. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert because any escalation is a bad thing, but I would note that consensus is necessary for inclusion, not the other way around. Also, I'd like to encourage as much participation as possible in the policy proposal which renders this passage redundant. Privatemusings 21:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

purely on logic if there is no agreement on whether there is consensus for this policy, then there is obviously no consensus for it. It should be removed. Unless perhaps someone can show that there was consensus for it when it was added. As i remember, it was challenged from the first. DGG (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the talk page and you can find debate from the very beginning. Just look at the edit history and you can find many removals even at the very beginning. [1][2] The NPA#EL proposal policy just hasn't achieved consensus as of this time. After the arbcom case is concluded, one of the first orders of businesses would be to restore NPA text to only the parts that have consensus, and to start over trying to build consensus for a policy about the links of this kind. --Alecmconroy 04:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If other editors agree with me that this section would be better omitted for the time being, then I would encourage them to remove it. I would also recommend that all editors here stick to 1RR as a good way of ensuring calm debate rather than any warring. Privatemusings 04:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not approipriate for a couple of editors to question a policy and remove a big chunk a day later. This material has been inthe polcy since April and should not be removed lightly. If there's no consensus for this then I don't see how there will be a consensus for Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. If folks want to re-write this policy then they should do so properly, by soliciting opinions at the Village Pump, or an RfC. This is virtually a "stealth" deletion, made with little discussion and based on a little input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the evidence that this has consensus, or has ever had consensus? So far, all you've offered is that the edit-warring over this text has been going on since April. That the dispute has been longstanding is not evidence that the dispute does not exist.

It's fine to say it should be policy-- as you well know, there's lots and lots of debate over this. But the debate DOES exist-- it's just not credible to claim that there's no major debate or controversy over this section. The section isn't just disputed, it's highly disputed. --Alecmconroy 05:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll make the ridiculous point that vandalism often stays in articles for a very long time, but that doesn't mean it should be there. Another way to put this is "Just because it remains doesn't make it valid." This debate has been somewhat of a war of attrition from the start and I've nearly gave up arguing or questioning any position.

I can only speak for myself in saying that I was naive enough not to edit war over it and hoped that discussion would take place on talk. Currently, I'm not sure if I am still that idealistic or just fed up with it. I participated in some of the discussion that took place and followed nearly all of it; I would say that this does not have consensus. As a matter of fact, many that edit warred over it got to a point where they hardly participated in talk page discussion. MONGO was commendable in that he at least had the courtesy to comment here and not ignore it completely. When I asked about the lack of discussion (when making substantial changes to this section), I was told that, among other reasons, that people aren't participating to protect themselves from harassment and that it is foolish to debate anyway because "attack sites cannot be tolerated" (my paraphrase, the response I got from MONGO is here) I'd say that if points are questioned over and over again by a substantial amount of editors there was no consensus, but I didn't argue about it then and I probably wouldn't now. It's such an emotional issue that I've found it extremely difficult to have a productive discussion. Or maybe all things on Wikipedia are like this and I just haven't been around long enough to figure that out.  :-) daveh4h 06:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing policy. But if it's going to be changed, whether by addition or by omission, then let's have a fair discussion, with proper notification of the community. If we need to determine the consensus we can hold a survey. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so, we agree that a consensus is needed amend policy. You just added in a section entitled NPA#External Links. Where is your proof that that addition to the policy is supported by consensus? --Alecmconroy 08:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Policies are not edited in the same way as articles. There's a necessary presumption in favor of the status quo applies. It is disruptive to have editors remove long-standing policy text and then demand proof of a fresh consensus in order to re-insert what shoudn't have been removed to begin with. Please don't change policies without first eliciting community input first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're misunderstanding me. I'm not demanding proof of a fresh consensus-- I'll accept any proof that the text has reached consensus and is no longer particularly disputed. But it has never had consensus-- as best as I can tell, it hasn't even had a majority.

Put another way-- there is a portion of this page that seems to be unsupported by consensus. The evidence I can point to, in order to prove that portion of the policy is disputed, is multifold. I can show you BADSITES, which was defeated using essentially identical langauge. I can show you the Arbcom case, where many many many people have disputed this section. And I can show you the edits wars that have occured on this page over the dispute text, and I can show you the debate that has occured. And if none of that convinces you, I can point out that if a number of editors are having a dispute about whether or not there's a dispute-- that's pretty good evidence that there's a dispute.

NPA#EL IS disputed. It does not have consensus at this moment. It is not policy. Maybe it should be. Maybe someday it will. But as of today, it is not. --Alecmconroy 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So to prove the point why don't you post some notices in relevant spots, like the Village Pump and the ongoing RfAr, saying that you believe there's no consensus for a policy prohibiting the harassment of editors and that you're intending to remove the text from WP:NPA. That seems like the logical and reasonable way to proceed with a major policy change. Though you contend that it isn't a policy, it's been there for the past six months. It's sensible to spend six days discussing its removal. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help things much to describe the proposed removal in biased, emotional language like "no consensus for prohibiting harassment of editors", any more than it would to use biased, emotional language in the other direction like "no support of repressive suppression of politically incorrect links". Part of the problem is that both sides are trying to frame the issue in highly loaded ways that prejudice the results, and I've been one of those doing it; it's unavoidable, I guess, when you're passionate about something. What's needed is a statement of the dispute in a calm, rational manner that can be brought up as a survey question to determine where the true consensus lies. *Dan T.* 12:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the proposal here. Folks aren't proposing to alter this provision, but to delete it entirely, and without any community input. As for passion, considering your history of posting links to your essay at every opportunity I'd say you're the most passionate advocate involved in this matter. If folks here actaully support he measure they're drafting, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, then the best thing would be to further it towards being a policy that supercedes this one rather than working to delete this first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent)We're making this far more complex then it needs to be. Forget, for a moment, that there's a new proposed policy, forget about the arbcom case, etc.

Let's just consider NPA#EL, right now. Does it have consensus or not?

If you think it DOES have consensus, what is your evidence? If you think it does NOT have consensus, then it should go.

--Alecmconroy 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your initial comment that started this off was "Once the arbitration is concluded, the disputed section should be removed from the policy page." So you assert a linkage between the ongoing ArbCom case and this policy. As it happens, the ArbCom case has not concluded so your own deadline hasn't even been met yet. Regarding finding consensus for an exiting polcy, can you prove there's a consensus for WP:NPA? It's not so easy to go back after months or years and determine what was what. The fact that the text was in the policy following a long discussion indicates that there was a de facto consensus to retain it. What's clear today is that there was no effort to inform the community of a plan to alter a core policy, and the deleton was made less than a day later after it was mentioned. A deletion is a change to a policy and shouldn't be made without reasonable notice and discussion. Is there a problem with letting the community know that there's a plan to remove all prohibitions on linking to harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Can you prove there's a consensus for WP:NPA" Sure I can. For one, nobody's disputing it-- whereas NPA#EL has been disputed by lots and lots of people in lots and lots of venues (as, of course, you well know). If you check the archives, you'll find ample discussion in support of it, along with a poll that had vast support for making NPA policy. In contrast, NPA#EL has no such poll or consensus in discussion, and when a functionally-equivalent policy was proposed at BADSITES, it was rejected.

There's no such thing as a "de facto consensus". There is no "home base" or "statue of limitations" where if you can just edit-war long enough, something becomes policy. Ya really do have to have consensus.

If you feel like this has just all been sprung on you out of the blue, then feel free to take a few days to try to generate consensus. As long as the arbcom case is in progress, I don't feel an overwhelming need to press the issue, just out of courtesy. But if you are going to argue that this section is supported by consensus, you should go about demonstrating such a consensus now. Personally, I think there's been ample discussion about this over the past few year that we all know it's highly disputed-- but if you feel a few more days will change that, have a few more days, after which you should be prepared to demonstrate a consensus or accept its removal.

Having looked over the whole issue, I can no evidence that NPA#EL is supported by consensus, nor have you offered any. (Nor have you even overtly asserted that it is, indeed, supported by consensus.) If I'm correct and the section isn't supported by consensus, then it is coming out-- it's only a question of when. --Alecmconroy 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that something sat in policy for months is not evidence of a de facto consensus - it's evidence that the pro BADSITES group won the war of attrition. Being the last one standing isn't the same as having convinced everyone to agree with you.

On the other hand, there's no need to remove the section either, as it's doing no harm. I would suspect anybody trying to remove or re-add the section of silliness. As I've said from the start, the inclusion or exclusion of that paragraph doesn't affect policy one bit. Its inclusion doesn't protect anyone, nor harm anyone, nor does its exclusion protect or harm anyone.

Especially in its most recent form, what does it matter? It's practically content-free. What's at stake here, for those who would remove it? How about for those who would keep it? What do we imagine we're arguing over? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For me, the main concern is that we are trying to adopt a policy that might have consensus. Doing so will be much easier if it's clear that there currently is no policy whatsoever on this-- not two conflicting policies, nor one currently adopted policy and one proposed change to that policy.

Additionally, by just allowing the text to sit here in the policy page, that only serves to validate it. Eventually, we see people like Will arguing that it's mere presence on the page is proof that it is, in fact, policy. There's no emergency hurry, but this sort of policy making needs to stop-- edit warring on an existing policy page when a proposed new policy is rejected. It's gone on since April, which I think is more than enough indulgence. --Alecmconroy 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Policy is what it is. There should be no question that policy includes anything unreasonable, nor any doubt that it includes whatever is reasonable. The existence of a paragraph on WP:NPA shouldn't get in the way of developing an independent policy, but such policy will be much better if it's simply a description of existing good practice. Most if not all of the dispute here comes from people believing in word-magic that doesn't really exist.

I'm curious as to what exactly is disputed about the paragraph in there now. It reads to me like a description of common-sense... so what's the problem? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current version is certainly far closer to something that could be supported by consensus than earlier texts that have been here. But it's still seems to imply that merely insertingo otherwise appropriate links to controversial sites is a violation of NPA.

The word magic is a useful point, and I wouldn't be inclined to stress over it if the NPA#EL section hadn't already caused substantial disruption. So, for example, not to pick on Will, but in the past, he and other editors have felt comfortable purging dozens of links based on NPA#EL, then edit warring over the deletions. Substantial disruption over multiple incidents-- the people who run the website he purged are very upset by the whole thing. He hasn't been warned for his past actions, he hasn't promised not to repeat the behavior in the future, and the existence of the NPA#EL fauxpolicy is why.

Now, that one site isn't just the issue. The past is the past, but the future is the issue. We need to get some sort of a consensus on the whole thing, and the very first step to that is recognizing that NPA#EL does not itself have consensus in its present form-- and more than that, recognizing the inappropriatenss of forming new policies just by edit-warring existing policy pages. Until we get that cleared up, nothing else will ever get solved, I would think. --Alecmconroy 00:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The first step in creating a survey is deciding on the phrasing of the question. I propose: "Shall we delete Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links?" Is that accptable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A survey would be one way to do things-- so long as we're clear that something NEEDS consensus to be policy, and proposed policies which do not have clear consensus either way are NOT policy. Ultimately, I don't really think a full-fledged survey is necessary-- it's most clear from all the discussion at BADSITES and Arbcom that the attack sites policies embodied by the earlier NPA#EL didn't have consensus.

If you would want another survey, I'd suggest proposing the text you want to reside here, and then seeing how that goes. "Should we delete" might be a little problematic, since most people feel we should eventually get SOME sort of policy on this. A nice straightforward "I propose X, what do you think" would work though.

Alternatively, we could just put something totally uncontroversial up saying that the applicability of NPA to articles has been a much-discussed subject, no clear consensus has emerged yet, and then directing people to BADSITES and the ARBCOM case for a more thorough discussion. --Alecmconroy 02:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Id assumed we'd mention the text in the survey. I'll post a survey request tomorrow and post notices in relevant pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it, here beith my reasoning: as worded the section means nothing. "Some people think it's against this policy" shouldn't be in a policy page; something either is against policy per community consensus or it's not. If there's not significant support to have it stated outright that "this is bad and you will be blocked", as is clear here and on a number of pages, it shouldn't be in there at all. The material was also very open-ended regarding what an attack site is. I think the link to the developing policy should stay though, as that page is sure to be more explicit on defining attack sites.

Actually, "some people think it's against this policy" is great in a policy page. We strive for our policies to be descriptive as opposed to prescriptive, and indicating what people think is a fine way to be descriptive. "You will be blocked," is inappropriate in a policy page. "People have been blocked," is much better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. How would you like to walk around a town where "some policemen think it's illegal to jaywalk"? What is some people's opinion belong in a WP:ESSAY not in a WP:Policy statement. We don't allow this sort of WP:Weaseling in articles because we know it's problematic. That goes doubly for policy. -- 67.98.206.2 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia policies are not laws, and should not be thought of as laws. I'm not suggesting putting opinion into policy. I'm suggesting putting in the factual observation that people have, at times, been blocked for certain behaviors. Others have not been blocked for similar behavior, therefore it would be inaccurate to claim that anyone using links in a certain way will be blocked.

As for walking around a town where some policemen think it's illegal to jaywalk, I do it every day. Yesterday, I jaywalked right in front of a cop. He didn't care. Neither Wikipedia nor life is a formal system. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern about "some people think" language is that, although true, it sort of circumvents the consensus process. What's needed is to reach some agreement on the basic principles about the subject. Is it okay to insert links for the purposes of harassing people? Is it okay to insert an otherwise appropriate links? etc. Simply saying "Some people think" leads to unending disagreement and disruption among people who both feel they're doing their best to implement the policy.

I would feel much better with a statement "Some people think the NPA policy_should_ forbid links..."-- i.e. saying "we don't have a consensus for this yet, but there is a group of people who want there to be one". --Alecmconroy 01:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm disappointed that someone charged with teaching the young would jaywalk, GTBacchus otherwise makes a lot of sense. Still, a re-write to consider the intentions of would-be linkers would be useful I think. I'm gonna have a go at it. Milto LOL pia 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So rewritten. Comments? One thing I'll disagree with GT on is the appropriateness of the wording before, regarding "some people think it's in violation of this policy" - maybe would "some people consider it to be an attack" be better? Then it sounds like the opinion on the posting of such links is ambiguous rather than the policy... I wish I could word that better. Anyway, how do people feel on the new version? Milto LOL pia 02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Big improvement. I think (hope)the text that currently is up as of right this moment is completely non-controversial, in the sense that-- everyone can agree that the sentences it says are true. Some people do consider links to be attacks, posting a link with intent to harass is prohibited, people should try not to post such links if they can help it,etc. I _think_ all those points are undisputed, right?

Obviously, the text itself is going to be a little controversial, since some editors would prefer a text that goes beyond this. But, keeping in mind that some people will want more statements-- 'can we agree that the statements in this version are noncontroversial??? '--Alecmconroy 03:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets

I've got a random question: is suggesting that two people are meatpuppets considered a personal attack? Ksy92003(talk) 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on whether they're in or out of favor with the ruling clique. *Dan T.* 00:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? For example, the comment that I'm referring to, one that I left and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) told me via e-mail (he's currently blocked) that it was, reads as follows:

I didn't do a thing wrong here, and you were the first to make a comment not related to the topic, so I haven't a clue why you're directing all the blame at me. Maybe it's because you and Chris are very good buddies and always side with each other and you want to defend him by making false accusations towards me, or at least that's what it seems like to me.

Ksy92003(talk) 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling another user a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, vandal, etc.. is acceptable and is not a personal attack if you have solid evidence for your allegation. Bandying those words around without basis may or may not technically be a personal attack, but it should be avoided regardless as it just poisons the atmosphere. Picaroon (t) 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In this situation, I didn't have any solid evidence. All I did was raise the suggestion based on the fact that, by Chris' own admissions, he has conversed with Pats1 greatly via AIM, especially during times of Chrisjnelson blocks, as he has a couple times asked to talk to him via AIM when he was blocked, and I thought that the possibility existed. I didn't accuse them of being meatpuppets, and thusly, I didn't think that it was wrong. Ksy92003(talk) 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: External links to harassment

Shall we delete Wikipedia:No personal attacks#External links, the current prohibition on external links to off-site harassment that is the subject of an ongoing ArbCom case? 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous version:

• Links to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted, and should be removed. Such removals are not subject to the three-revert rule, though administrators may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

"PrivateMusings version" (note: this excerpt was earlier erroneously attributed to BenB4):

• 'Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is controversial, discouraged, and many editors consider it to be in violation of this policy. Many editors agree that removal of such links is not subject to the three-revert rule, though they may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies for this exemption

Miltopia version:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is discouraged, and is considered an attack by some Wikipedians. Editors may disagree over whether or not a particular link qualifies as a link to off-site harassment. Posting such a link with intent to insult or otherwise attack an editor is prohibited. As a matter of courtesy, editors should consider refraining from even good faith linking to such sites unless such a link is necessary to further discussion of an encyclopedic issue or is used as a source in an article. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of harassment by way of external links can be grounds for banning.

When other editors link to sites that may be inappropriate on these grounds, remember to consider the intentions of that editor above all. Appropriately assuming good faith can prevent needless escalation of a dispute, or other problems caused by misunderstandings.

Views in favor of retaining the prohibition on linking to external harassment

• There is widespread support for limiting the harassment of Wikipedia editors. Linking to off-site harassment is an extension of making on-site personal attacks. The current ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites, finds that there is support for a policy which prohibits such links. While a potential replacement policy is being drafted at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, that proposal is not mature and has not been approved. Until a better policy is approved, we should retain the current prohibition on linking to external harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Linking to an off-site attack makes the article about the person and ourselves instead of the subject of the article. It promotes drama, adds nothing to the project, and discourages those who are contributing real content. There is wide support for this, and the language should be kept here until it is replaced by the new policy. There are edge cases here as everywhere else, and those are best handled by reasonable behavior, not slavish rule-following. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• One of the big problems with Wikipedia is that we are too tolerant of trolling. Even blatant vandals are given 3-4 strikes before we block them. The end result is that countless hours are spent on nonsense like this and meanwhile this kind of SICKENING LIBEL doesn't get reverted for SIX WHOLE HOURS [3]. No, we shouldn't link to attack sites. No, we shouldn't tolerate trolling. Far too much time is spent arguing about how vile it has to be before it's an attack site and not enough time is spent worrying about the attacks here. Quit wasting time defending the indefensible and do something useful. --B 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Most external attacks on editors are aimed to influence content by putting pressure on editors and administrators. Wikipedia has every right to prevent that from happening. The alternatives to the current version are mealy mouthed and weak. There is no valid reason for allowing links to personal attacks on editors. Most such links are already prohibited by various other policies, including WP:EL. This policy makes it loud and clear that Wikipedia will protect its volunteers from harassment, and will not allow itself to be manipulated, or its neutrality compromised, by external efforts to influence content. Despite all the yammering about NPOV, in point of fact the very aim of these attacks is to undermine NPOV.--Samiharris 15:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I support keeping the prohibition. I also think that BenB4's suggestion above should be stricken, as he is the banned sockpuppet of a banned user, and his contributions are not welcome to the project, and are subject to deletion, per the banning policy. - Crockspot 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• The scorched-earth, unperson, suppressive person policy towards any ideas believed to originate with a banned user is unbecoming of a community devoted to free inquiry. *Dan T.* 00:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Also, the names were somewhat arbitrary, based just on who had the last edit of the version cited. I don't know if BenB4 is the one who wrote the policy that bears his name or not. WillBeBack didn't write the WillBeBack version, for example. --Alecmconroy 00:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Right, in fact, the version excerpted above wasn't even present when BenB4 made the linked edit. It was the next edit by Privatemusings which is called "the BenB4 version" above. No big deal except for the banning part. Rdp45 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support and well. There must be some basic protection for our editors in place. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. It's worth noting that the intent of the editor who posts links to harassment is not relevant in determining whether or not the links should remain, but only in whether or not to block the editor. If someone puts arsenic in the Christmas Cake because he doesn't know it's poison and he thinks it will improve the flavour, then you don't put him in jail, but you certainly don't eat the cake or serve it to others. The whole "intent" thing can be abused as well, with trolls pretending to act out of concern, in order to post their links. ElinorD (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are you seriously claiming that links to information that hurts some people's feelings is in any way comparable to poisoning them with arsenic? *Dan T.* 23:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, of course not. But I might well reply by asking you if you really think that exposing people to threats of physical violence, sexual harassment, and attempts to get them fired from their jobs is the same as merely "hurting people's feelings". I am claiming that if something is likely to harm people, we try to prevent that harm, even if the person who did that something didn't intend harm, and that I used the example to help some people who seem to have extraordinary trouble in understanding that. I wonder do you really think that trying to get someone fired from their job is on the same level morally, and on the same level with regard to the damage done, as telling them that you think their nose is too big. ElinorD (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• And of course I don't favor getting anybody fired from their job or exposing them to physical or sexual harm... and I don't care about the size of anybody's nose. I do, however, believe that claims about links from here to any site actually causing any of these sorts of harm to occur are grossly exaggerated. *Dan T.* 00:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• And you say that having any consideration of good faith, etc., is prone to abuse... but having a draconian no-links-under-any-circumstances policy has proven to be abundantly prone to abuse, as shown on the evidence page of the arbcom case. *Dan T.* 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• ElinorD, you'll never be able to engineer Wikipedia process in such a way that no troll can ever try to take advantage of it. That's what trolls do. That's why people sort those who claim to have good intent out into good editors and troublemakers. Considering a person's good faith is definitely and obviously important, and nothing in the version you're reverting away from doesn't say anything about leaving bad links in anyway. Milto LOL pia 21:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support...Wikipedia doesn't exist for any purpose other than writing and maintaining this encyclopedia...if you are here for a purpose other than that, I suggest you try a blog.--MONGO 17:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• That principle is a double-edged sword, since it wouldn't give much favor to people on either side of the issue who make big fusses about adding, removing, retaining, suppressing, or doing anything else pro or con regarding links, for any reason other than an encyclopedic one. *Dan T.* 17:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you and the others who keep pushing to link to everything here to write an encyclopedia? All your time seems to be dedicated to trying to permit linking to websites that attack our editors. If that is all you have to offer this project, then I suggest you find some other website to play on.--MONGO 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that a (gasp) personal attack, on the talk page of the policy against personal attacks? Oh, the irony... *Dan T.* 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I "out" you? Seriously...do you have a purpose anymore aside from this neverending battle to be able to link to some of these capricious websites?--MONGO 19:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can "out" me since I use my real name openly. My stats show 5058 edits in main article space out of a total of 8547, so I'm still in a state of having done more edits directly in the encyclopedia than in peripheral stuff to it, though I'm sure my percentage has suffered in recent months due to my getting drawn into this silly debate to stop needless censorship. *Dan T.* 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, of course, yes, the linking to external harassment (in the terms of personal attacks and revealing real life identities, etc.) should be prohibited, but only the link to that material; not the rest of the site, its champions, and anything else with a passing resemblence. Everything else should be considered under WP:RS. LessHeard vanU 20:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I guess the next poll question needs to be about just what provision(s) should be in the section, if it's decided from this question that there should be such a section at all. And there also ought to be some attempt made to get broader participation than just The Usual Suspects, who are so far dominating the debate. Where's the silent majority? *Dan T.* 20:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support a sensible, non-hysterical version that is concentrated on WP:ENC rather than fruitlessly crusading against trolls. Milto LOL pia 21:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Views in favor of deleting the prohibition on linking to external harassment

• Any sort of link ban, however worded, has been used as an invitation to overreaction on the part of some editors and admins, and the 3RR exception is an invitation for edit warring. The milder wording above is unobjectionable to me on its face, but doesn't seem to be able to stick before somebody insists on putting "more teeth" into it. Some sort of principle against using links for the purpose of harrassing somebody is fine (we don't want harassment anywhere, any way... on a boat, with a goat, here, there, anywhere, or with a link), but it seems impossible to express this as part of policy without it being extended and misinterpreted in all sorts of ways that suppress legitimate commentary and criticism, so we're best off without any such explicit provision. Genuine, serious harassment can always be dealt with no matter what the policy says. *Dan T.* 23:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with the Miltopia version above. *Dan T.* 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

    Just one comment, Dan. You say above that "the 3RR exception is an invitation for edit warring." I would reply that it takes two to edit war, and there's no excuse for it in any policy. If you add material that someone removes, and you re-add it without first addressing the problem in a discussion, then you're in the wrong, no matter what any policy says, anywhere. There is a way to deal with conflict here that is both sanctioned and effective, and it doesn't involve anything that resembles edit-warring. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    I actually agree; I refrain from edit-warring myself. However, giving one side of a "war" an exception to 3RR while holding the other side to it is just asking the first guy to keep reverting forever, which isn't a good thing even if the people on the other side of the war aren't being very good themselves. *Dan T.* 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absoloutely, as per Dan's reasoning. Linking to a personal attack in the form of a personal attack is still just that, an attack which fits perfectly well with the rest of NPA without having to clearly assert it. It is a logical extension of the policy. However as soon as it is inserted into the policy, it gets hijacked for purposes that lack widespread community support (see WP:BADSITES) and are not logically part of a policy on personal attacks. We are better off without it. Viridae^Talk 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Linking is not special. Linking for the purposes of harassment is already forbidden by NPA without any work. Linking for reasons unrelated to harassment is only being done for encyclopaedic purposes. WilyD 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• A link to an external site for purposes of harassment is in itself a personal attack, and we can treat them as we would any other personal attack. A special prohibition on sites like this only opens up the potential for abuse, edit-warring, and even POV-pushing; the community already recognized this and rejected the failed BADSITES proposal for this reason, yet somehow more or less the same verbiage made its way here into WP:NPA, and indeed a vocal portion of our community has been consistently and systematically abusing it to quash legitimate concerns and constructive criticism all in the name of "no personal attacks." --krimpet⟲ 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, yes, the linking to external harassment (in the terms of personal attacks and revealing real life identities, etc.) should be prohibited, but only the link to that material; not the rest of the site, its champions, and anything else with a passing resemblence. This is already covered elsewhere on NPA. Everything else should be considered under WP:RS. LessHeard vanU 20:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the above

• The principle that editors shouldn't harass each other by posting links either is good, but the implementation is questionable. Using a paragraph that starts with equivocation like "many editors agree" but ends with immunity to the three-revert-rule and banning? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who tweaked the more prescriptive text into the form above, I'm happy enough that it's clear about the status quo. My main priority would be to encourage all editors over to the policy proposal page, and I also mildly agree with the perspective that because of the work there, this para should be removed as redundant.

That's a firm 'don't really mind' then. Privatemusings 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've changed the text above to what was there before the undiscussed changes on October 1 [4], which I'd missed. This may change the views of you or AnonEMouse. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The text makes it appear that linking to such a site at anytime, anyplace is a banning offense. The text should make it clear that linking to such a site for the purpose of engaging in a personal attack against another Wikipedian is prohibited and that linking to sites, any sites, for article content purposes, or in debates on the merit of such a site, doesn't constitute a personal attack. Linking to controversial sites in article space would be subject to the Reliable Source, Notability, and other content policies. Cla68 23:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Miltopia's version above. Cla68 02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This process, whilst no doubt intended to usefully address the matter in hand, could unfortunately be prone to causing productive debate to fork. I'd encourage editors to also contribute at the arbitration case, and at the policy proposal page. Privatemusings 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a personal attack. The use of links (internal or external) to make a personal attack do not change that simple statement. There has to be a target of the personal attack for a link to be a personal attack. Making a personal attack using links is no different than making a personal attack using one's own words. The penalty to an editor making a personal attack using a link should be absolutely no different than the penalty for making the personal attack using one's own words. A link to material in some archive or talk page or project page or article unrelated to the supposed target of the personal attack is NOT a personal attack; removal of links from those areas should be under the auspices of WP:EL and this policy should have no comment on such link removals. I would propose a single sentence in the list of types of personal attacks that says that using links (internal or external) to make a personal attack is unacceptable. Risker 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In terms of policy, I so far agree with the general shape of the proposed new policy, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. In terms of the text on this page-- the current text never went through the consensus-getting process-- it's just been editwarred to the point of attrition. It doesn't have consensus, it is highly disputed, it is not policy. It should be removed and replaced with something completely un-objectionable (like Risker's text), or a link to other policy proposals, or a summary of a policy that has achieved consensus (if one exists). --Alecmconroy 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC) The Miltopia version listed above also works for me. --Alecmconroy 11:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But we've essentially agreed that Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment doesn't actually have any purpose beyond what's already covered in existing policies.[5] Why replace a useful policy with an pointless one? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We have to replace the BADSITES wording here because it doesn't have consensus, has never had consensus, and I presume never will have consensus. Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment may not have everything everyone wants in it, but those things it does have in it probably are going to be supported by consensus, I suspect. --Alecmconroy 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with that. In retrospect, I think moving the original intent and purpose of BADSITES over to NPA was a tremendously bad idea, but as I've stated before, I attempted in doing so to preserve its intent rather than let my own concerns overide it. Still, I fully expected the text I inserted to be edited vigorously, and I did not expect the controversy to last this long. An initial argument against BADSITES was that existing policy already covered it, which I thought was true. Subsequent arguments pro-moral imperatives against "attack sites" appear to me to be a reinvention or resurgence of the prior arguments in favor of removing personal attacks as texts, as opposed to links.—AL ^FOCUS! 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I originally forked the BADSITES text into NPA expecting it to be struck down or modified for consistency with WP:NPA#Removal of text. I proposed this [6] some hours before I went ahead and did it, but other than User:MONGO [7] no one else involved in the discussion at the time objected. Now, while it seems obvious to me that doing this was a bad idea, some version of it should probably stay for the time being while the ArbCom case works out and as the discussions on the alternative policy proposal continue.—AL ^FOCUS! 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To that effect, I also support Miltopia's version.—AL ^FOCUS! 22:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, of course, yes, the linking to external harassment (in the terms of personal attacks and revealing real life identities, etc.) should be prohibited, but only the link to that material; not the rest of the site, its champions, and anything else with a passing resemblence. Everything else should be considered under WP:RS. The problem with the above two stances is that far more than just the harassing link gets involved - the constant misrepresentation of the non-absolutist position regarding link banning is that it is pro linking; it is not, it is anti site banning via badly worded and vindictively applied link banning policy. LessHeard vanU 20:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• A prohibition should not affect article space at all. I'm not sure what my opinion is for other space as of now. And if we aren't intelligent enough to judge when a link is meant to be harassing when it isn't we have other problems. JoshuaZ 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC) I think that this comment by on Wikien by an arbcom member may be relevant. `JoshuaZ

Protection after edit warring

This is pretty unfortunate; while those who are trying to work out improvements to this policy, those who can't be bothered to discuss these developments more than voting in some poll get in the way. MONGO in particular has been empowered to revert anyone he wants as long as he states in the edit summary that the people he is reverting are associated with ED or Wikipedia Review. At what point will these excuses run cold, and MONGO and others be forced to give good-faith contributors due consideration? I'm honestly asking; how long is the community going to cater to MONGO's tastes just because he's been harassed in the past? Being called an "ED partisan" and an "Encyclopedia Dramatica troll" is truly getting tiring. Milto LOL pia 07:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno if the protection is all that bad. Edit warring over policy pages isn't supposed to happen, protection is probably automatic response by any good admin, and as long as we're still in discussion, there probably isn't any "right version" to protect. lol.

I would be deeply distressed if it appeared that protection was being used to circumvent the requirement that policy get consensus. But I tend to think that the people here who support the inclusion will live up to their word and agree to remove the wording that doesn't yet have consensus. The straw poll results are turning out just like all the other discussions that have been held-- sharply divided, with no clear consensus for any principle that says "linking to a BADSITE is, ipso facto, a personal attack that should be purged" .

It would be the height of badfaith for them to keep insisting on its inclusion despite a lack of consensus after a certain amount of time has passed. Much less for anyone to use page protection to enforce that. I don't see it happening. We have a philosophical difference over a very thorny issue, but everyone here strikes me as a good and honorable person, and I honestly don't believe anyone here would even think of trying to pull such an outrageous stunt. --Alecmconroy 08:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

On a side-note, and I won't change it now lest your comments lose context, but it wasn't so much the protection that I was calling unfortunate as was the edit warring (in which I engaged as well). That was just what prompted my comments and I didn't have a good header. Milto LOL pia 08:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Just because he's been harassed in the past?" I'm delighted to know that you and your friends have taken down his article. Oh wait, I just looked. . . . ElinorD (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not been active at ED for nearly a year. This is exactly what I am talking about, Elinor, and you'd do well to know what the hell you are talking about before knee-jerk reacting to what I am saying. Futhermore what goes on at ED is irrelevant, I'm talking strictly about what has happened on Wikipedia. The ED threat has long passed for those who do not obsess over it. Milto LOL pia 08:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Elinor, you speak of that which you know not. Careful you don't speak untruths. Don't let your judgments of people fall behind reality. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD (and especially MONGO, in his snarky edit summaries), I urge you to not resort to assuming bad faith and (particularly in MONGO's case) borderline personal attacks, all the while arguing about how to stop personal attacks. Miltopia is a member of the Wikipedia community in good standing, he's one of many Wikipedians who share the same concerns, and he's been trying to offer a reasonable compromise to the issue, yet his attempts have been shoved away using the common fallacious argument of association that because he was an active user of ED at one point, all his input is moot. This is completely counter to the Wikipedia community spirit of building consensus, was responsible for the silly edit war that led to this page being protected, and will only make this dispute worse. --krimpet⟲ 09:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, last time I checked, Miltopia also has an attack piece written up on him at ED, which if anything should qualify him for deferential treatment so far as his opinions on attack sites go. (Social networks sure do undermine association fallacies!) —AL ^FOCUS! 10:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had attack pieces about me be published in several sites, too. But, getting back to the point of the various smears about opponents of BADSITES and its relatives being "trolls" for the various "attack sites", one should note that another section of this NPA policy bars "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." This would seem to block the use of "guilt by association" regarding one's activities at external sites. One should further note that if the nature of individuals' participation in those sites is to be made an issue for debate here, then it follows that all sides ought to be free to present specific links to content in those sites contributed by or relating to those individuals in order to back up their points... which brings things full circle. *Dan T.* 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know. You'd think that line of argument would have gotten old by now, given the numbers of editors involved and the sheer extent of this controversy and its impact on Wikipedia. I don't even post at WR or ED, and even quit posting on this subject for awhile as it seemed hopeless. While I do sympathize with those targeted by "attack sites," it's clear to me that the opposition is not propelled by "proponents of attack sites," or this controversy would have been dispelled a long time ago. Rather, the opposition seems to me to be motivated out of concerns for transparency and free speech, primarily by people who believe in the open-source movement as more than a social club.—AL ^FOCUS! 17:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia talks about his apparent reformation...in what way? I see no major article efforts, no major efforts to do anything but argue here and on arbcom cases. My recollection is of his wikistalking my edits, and his unabashed efforts to make my efforts to write an encyclopedia less than enjoyable. GTBaccus is also an ED contributor and always comes to the defense of his fellows. You folks really should get busy writing an encyclopedia instead of being angry that this policy was protected on the "wrong version"...seriously, 2 million articles await you.--MONGO 06:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You lie MONGO, and you've never spelled my name correctly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Modifying my original comment, per AGF. MONGO, your statement presupposes certain falsehoods; I suggest you be more careful that your accusations hold water before you make them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to briefly point out that the Arbitration Committee investigated my alleged wikistalking of MONGO and took no action. After I was unblocked from MONGO's block, and said unblock being endorsed multiple times on various noticeboards. Milto LOL pia 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(reply to original) No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith exist for a reason. You would do well to follow them. Attacking other editors with personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and guilt by association doesn't strengthen your case-- on the contrary, it reminds us all of how, once they feel attacked, almost all people tend to be come extremely vindictive, and hence, why we should place strong checks on such emotional attempts to compromise valuable encyclopedia content and NPOV.

ED is not the Nazi Party, where anyone who was ever associated with it is automaticaly an evil person whose ideas deserve to be dismissed and whose character deserves to be attacked with impunity. Come to think of it, even the Nazi Party wasn't actually the Nazi Party-- claiming guilt by association just doesn't work-- it only tends to make the speaker look petty and desperate. --Alecmconroy 06:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus says I "lie"...how odd, 'cause I always see whenever ED is brought up, there he is, defending present and past editors of that website...I am not a liar, thanks! Thanks also for alecmconroy's referral that I must be petty and or desperate...thank you...I never called ED the Nazi Party...what the on earth are you talking about? I think we're done here until you guys try once again to minimize the rights of our editors to be able to edit this website without being attacked by links to capricious websites.--MONGO 07:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I retracted that statement per AGF - I suspect you weren't lying - but it's true, I did say it initially. I thought you had noticed the occasions when ED has been brought up and I've stayed the hell out of it. I guess not. Do I have to find diffs? Since they're occasions where I didn't contribute, it might take me a while, but I can find them.

I honestly don't know whom you're including in your last sentence's "you guys", so I don't know whether you're accusing me of trying to minimize our editors' rights. I've never taken any action in this area with any intent other than to protect our editors, so if you're accusing me of that, you're probably not lying, but certainly badly mistaken. I've never got the impression that you've even tried to understand where I'm coming from - you've certainly never indicated a correct understanding of my actions or motivations - so I guess I'm not surprised. Thanks for getting the spelling right, anyhow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth. I didn't call you petty or desperate-- I said these sorts of arguments tend to cast you in that light. These kinds of "ED cabal" arguments are beneath you. This is a complex subject that reasonable people can disagree about without either side having to be satanic, conspiratorial, or acting on bad faith. By trying to reduce the argument to "Good Guys vs Trolls", you cheapen the entire discussion, and you just make yourself look bad.

The Nazi Party thing is a reference to Godwin's Law, where instead of engaging in intelligent debate, people just try to liken their opponents to Nazis. There seems to be a persistent misperception where people think if someone says "I have concerns about how BADSITES affects our encyclopedia" that it is an acceptable response to say "That dude has ties to ED". This is not an acceptable argument, it is just an attempt to attack the character of other editors-- by trying to "out" them as ED editors, ironically enough. --Alecmconroy 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never denied that I sometimes contribute to ED (at about 1/500th the rate that I contribute to WP). I have consistently opposed the idea that vilifying that website is an effective or sensible way to protect Wikipedia. Such demonization is folly because it feeds trolls and invites further trolling. Sometimes, MONGO seems committed to providing as many hot meals for trolls as he possibly can.

I would find it easier to work with MONGO if he showed some understanding that we're on the same side, but I'm pretty sure he's totally closed to that idea. It's not as if I haven't extended my hand in reconciliation. You're the one who's dropped the ball, MONGO. I'm always open to talking - you know how to get a hold of me, or you could just try to discredit me again.

In this case, I'm not even suggesting that any wording on the policy page be changed. I entered this thread just to point out that Miltopia is not an ED contributor and has no control over their content, and to agree that ad hominem arguments are unhelpful. Unless MONGO is arguing that Miltopia is an active and influential contributor there, or that ad hominem arguments are helpful, I'm not sure what beef he's got with me here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is supposed to be a place to discuss how we can prevent personal attacks, not to make them ourselves.Proabivouac 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you are clearly trying to evade the opposing arguments presented against you, in favor of picking out individuals with links to ED and attacking their character, and ignoring everyone else. Why are you avoiding the arguments being presented – such as that linking to personal attacks is already covered by the rest of NPA, that the 3RR exception only causes needless hostility and edit warring, and that BADSITES and its ilk have been used as justification for edit warring and compromising our NPOV in mainspace? Miltopia and GTBacchus, whatever dealings they may have had with ED in the past, are far from the only ones with these concerns.

ED is scum, and their article written on you is quite bad. It's understandable that you would have a strong dislike and distrust for them because of this. However, this argument is clearly not only about ED; ED is a non-notable, unreliable source almost completely consisting of libel and personal attacks, and there is basically no reason we would ever have to link to them under any circumstances. The real conflict here is whether the verbiage against linking to external harassment has actually been twisted and appropriated to suppress legitimate criticism and transparency, and worse, influencing our encyclopedic content, which is required as a basic pillar of Wikipedia to remain neutral.

Unfortunately, at this point, it really seems like you have been trying to abuse the sympathy of the community to get your way, and use it as carte blanche to be consistently incivil and attack other editors. --krimpet⟲ 07:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, I have yet to see how linking to a website that engages in outing efforts and harassment of our editors is at anytime helpful to writing an encyclopedia. So, as far as I am concerned, your argument is extremely weak. Furthermore, yes, if editors are know to have or are currently engaged in contributing to these capricious websites and are edit warring policy to try and wiggle some way to be able to link to them, then I do find their efforts to be circumspect. This fight is not for me...it is for all those that have been chased off this website by harassment, editors that have endured far worse maliciouness than I have.--MONGO 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors here, but as for myself, I have no interest in "trying to wiggle some way to be able to link to" harassing sites, nor have I edit-warred anything. On the contrary, I've consistently argued that harassing or outing links have always been against policy, and that their removal is already sanctioned without the need for extra verbiage - that's actually a harder-line stance than MONGO's. So what's the point in attacking my character? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo GT's lack of a desire to link to harassing sites. I'd remove any ED link I saw, have no desire to see it linked anywhere, ever, and my proposed rewrite of the section would describe the current forbidding of such links. Unnecessarily, as it's on the spam blacklist. And as I've said before, MONGO - you may recall - I no longer edit at ED. GTBacchus is not defending any ED contributers at the moment, nor has he ever stuck up for someone just because they are active at ED; rather, he has pointed out in several occassions when a person's ED activity is irrelevant to WP (as is the case most of the time). So MONGO, let's move one PLEASE and maybe you can start by describing what it is you don't like about my rewrite? Milto LOL pia 08:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, I've yet to see one example of where our "encyclopedic content" has been compromised by this debate. To wit, external links are 1) either not encyclopedic content, in which case they should be removed as unencyclopedic, or 2) are encyclopedic content, in which case this content should be expected to comply with our internal content policies. Most real encyclopedias don't have any links. My feeling is we should link only to those things we'd be proud to publish ourselves: the New York Times, USC's side-by-side scholarly translations of the Qur'an, SIL's Ethnologue, etc. This special case, where there is now a constituency to remove them, only underscores to me the wisdom of this principle.Proabivouac 07:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Proab, I think that would be a very interesting way to run an encyclopedia-- where a link constituted a "endorsement" based on reliability, rather than notabilty. I think there definitely would be a place on the internet for that kind of a project-- a "news you can trust" project where people sifted the trustworthy from the untrustworthy.

If that was how Wikipedia did linking, if that was our policy, then I'd be totally fine with not linking sites that engage in harassment, since they would easily constitute "BAD" links. But for better or for worse, that's not how this encyclopedia is written. We routinely link to partisan opinion sites, satire sites, political pundit sites, public forums, and the rest. And instead of judging our content, sorting it into "Good" and "Bad", we're supposed to have a neutral point of view.

All we ask is sites that discuss Wikipedia be held to the exact same policies as other sites. No special exceptions to block out the stuff we don't like. If it doesn't help the encyclopedia, it goes. If it does help the encyclopedia, it stays. Just like all our other links. --Alecmconroy 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. To me, the underlying question being debated here via the links issue is whether personal animosities between users (and whoever they may be involved with in real life or online) take precedence over principles of trust and good faith and neutrality (in the Swiss sense, I suppose) that are central to Wikipedia's functional collaborative culture.—AL ^FOCUS! 11:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I can't but agree that you've identified a certain hypocrisy in our policy. This was made most obvious to me in our link to this site which there are special warnings not to remove - it organizes IRL harassment against people who aren't editors to Wikipedia, and is anyhow junk. This isn't at all like depictions of Muhammad: the reason we should include these isn't to prove that we're uncensored, but because a serious museum would display them, because they're historically important.Proabivouac 12:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes-- the Westboro Baptist Church link is an even better analogy to ED. Your idea about a project only linking to, or referencing, sites that meets its own editorial standards is really intriguing. For some time now, I've thought that Wikipedia will ultimately partner with some other project which has stricter editorial standards. Wikipedia, always editable by the public, will have advantages of breadth and speed-- massive amounts of eyeballs able to quickly update the encyclopedia on all manners of subject. The other project, as yet nonexistent as far as I know, would perform a "peer-review" like task, producing only "good" articles where every sentence is 100% printed-encyclopedia quality. That project would be slow to respond-- new versions of article might be only infrequent, and not everyone could edit it, but it would be trusted. My interest is still with the Wikipedia side of things, but I bet it's only a matter of time before some sister project comes which exchanges along to do quality-control. Maybe such a project already exists, and if it does, it ought to seriously consider your idea of rigid quality control of external links. --Alecmconroy 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Websites don't attack people... people attack people! *Dan T.* 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

I need to get this out of the way: please list your name here yourself if you would considering linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica page(s) as encyclopedic sources. I'm trying to get my facts straight. Thank you. Milto LOL pia 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Definitely not as an "encyclopedic source" for anything, given that they care not a bit about having factual information versus achieving "lulz" (by being tasteless more than by being actually funny). In a sense, it's a bit of a shame that they're not a reliable source, given that their coverage of certain sorts of topics (like "Internet memes") is pretty comprehensive, but they are just not interested in being a factual source for anything including that sort of thing, so they don't work as a source for a factual encyclopedia like ours. The only place in main article space where it might ever make sense to link to them would be on an article about them if such a thing ever resurfaced, and there only as an "official site" link, not as the actual reference for facts about their history, since they're likely not even a reliable source about themselves. None of this, however, justifies a "scorched earth" policy for anything even referring to them on talk, project, and user pages. *Dan T.* 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Wikipedia is neutral; it also does not needlessly expose its own contributors to unhelpful and often unjustified illwill. This can reasonably include sites specializing in unjustified illwill, whether for satirical purposes, or some kind of "real life genuine grudge". However, the question is about ED in general. If there was an article that some page on ED was a useful, appropriate, and reliable source, and no better source existed, then that would be a different thing. For example, if it became necessary for some arcane reason to source and cite a statement that ED held an article on X at some date, or the original claim on some notable occurrance was on ED at date/link Y, or X was a founder of ED per their main page, or ED's stated policy on trolling is Z, then permanent links on ED would probably be a reliable sensible source for that. The problem is, I can't think of anything useful ED would be needed as a source for. Even claims like these could probably be sourced from more reliable sources if the matter was genuinely significant. The only place ED and Wikipedia cross over is questions about conduct and standing of individual editors. And in such contexts, the best resolution is often less drama, not more... so even there ED is not exactly helpful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Hmm, didn't expect these results tbh... let's hope this one doesn't come back to bite me.

Well, I think it's good that you would possibly use ED if it had reliable informative articles about memes... but it just doesn't. The articles at their very best are nothing more than nonsense collections with overdone images. I wasn't expecting anyone to support any possible linking and I'm glad I asked this before saying "well no one is talking about linking to ED". ED will never produce articles worth referencing. Not anymore anyway. Milto LOL pia 13:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe--- yeah. As the old lawyer adage goes, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. :). But despite the above, I don't think a change in the policy would actually result in any ED links, short of ED becoming a national news story.

The debate isn't about ED-- ED is a red herring or a strawman-- obsessing about a site so bad, our other policies prohibit it anyway, and then trying to claim that without BADSITES, we'll be deluged with ED links. ED isn't the problem. The ED article was delete a long time ago. The problems we've had since then have nothing to do with ED.

This debate is about the Michael Moore incident. It's 23 Aug 2007. MM's website outs an editor who allegedly had a conflict of interest, and has that information it's on its frontpage. Is there any policy which has consensus that mandates all links to Michael Moore be purged?

That is the issue. --Alecmconroy 14:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As the current wording is, yes, links to Moore's website would be mandatory exclusions, which means that this version reflects neither actual practice nor common sense. Milto LOL pia 14:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the fact that that wording has no consensus. --Alecmconroy 14:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Except for one other thing, too. You guys seem to be working under the assumption that WP policies are like laws, meant to be enforced to the letter. If a policy page would have us do something silly, like not link to Michael Moore when we should, then we ignore it in that case. Our policies aren't suicide pacts, and they don't need to be written as if they are. Policies never trump common sense.

Similarly, if we don't have it written somewhere that harassment by links is "illegal", but someone's doing it, we can still remove the links and block them without worrying about 3RR or any other technicalities. The "rules" always have and always will allow for application of common sense; their particular wording doesn't even matter, in a way.

If the issue is that someone is behaving in a way that's not consistent with common sense, then the solution is to talk to that person, not to try to get the write words on a policy page in order to legislate them into behaving the way you want. This is Wikipedia, not a court of law. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that, where "BADSITES" is concerned, common sense has never been particularly common or sensible. *Dan T.* 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point being...? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting we can write any inept policy or guideline we want, safe in the knowledge that WP:COMMON and WP:IAR will render it pointless anyway. So we could create a policy that says all editors must wear purple on Thursdays because everyone would magically know under what circumstances such a rule could be ignored or go unenforced. That's true, but completely putting the cart before the horse. -- 67.98.206.2 16:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Policies never trump common sense"-- so one would hope. But if there's any point it even having a policy page, surely there's a point in having a policy page only contain that which has consensus. I think the point about not being overly legalistic is well taken though. I would hope future policies just state some basic principles that seem to be agreed upon, and leave their specific application up to the editors in a specific case. Trying to make laws, and exceptions to laws, and exceptions to the exceptions-- never goes well. Our best policies state generally agreed upon principles, but leave their specific application up to consensus. The problem with BADSITE is that it was so absolutist, it encouraged the view that a specific rule would always trump common sense or consensus. --Alecmconroy 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia, read WP:POINT again, if you haven't already.--MONGO 16:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO this section has generated discussion as intended. It's becoming increaingly difficult to distinguish your input here from trolling. Please add input to the discussion rather than derail it, as I'm sure someone with as much WP experience as you have surely has some good ideas about this subject. Milto LOL pia 17:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that a fact? If anyone here is a troll it is most definitely you. Of course we are not linking to ED...stop wasting our time.--MONGO 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Has Jimbo abdicated and appointed you his successor as God-King? If not, then you have no authority to unilaterally declare what "we" are allowed to link to and deprecate efforts to find a consensus that may or may not agree with your position. *Dan T.* 19:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, your contributions to this discussion are disruptive and will continue to be as long as you refuse to read others' input and we have to waste time repeating everything for you. I have stated EXPLICITLY twice that I have no desire to see links to ED. Once on this page, and once on ElinorD's talk where you posted a reply to my message to her. See diffs: [8] [9]. If you imply that I am advocating links to this website you are being dishonest, and I half suspect that you are already talking with intention to paint me in a false light. I've put a lot of effort into avoiding your baiting me into a conflict, but if you don't cut it out I am going to ask for some sort of intervention, because there is no way you should be able to disrupt any conversation that doesn't go your way with personal attacks and lack of integrity. It's time that you STOPPED MAKING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT MY PERSONAL QUALITIES and started addressing the issues people have with this policy. Milto LOL pia 20:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How odd..you brought my name up above, so if anyone is attacking anyone, it is you attacking me. You deliberately capitalize the website you claim you have no affiliation with anymore and as far as I am concerned, it is a point violation. Why you are still on this website wasting our time is a mystery to me...I see almost nothing from you but trolling efforts...that is the way it has always been with you. Your ongoing POINT efforts are so tiresome...and it really is a definite waste of time to even be discussing that capricious website and the others of a similar vein.--MONGO 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it is a waste of time then don't participate. Milto LOL pia 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the point, ED is not a reliable source, just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. They are both open wikis, and one cannot ever predict what a reader will find at any particular moment that a page is loaded. It could be good content, or it could be "poop" vandalism. Therefore, ED (and Wikipedia, and any wiki for that matter) is never to be cited as a reliable source in an article. Clear enough? - Crockspot 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Though, by its nature, if you find "poop" on an ED article it is likely to be its intended state, and removing it would be considered vandalism. :-) *Dan T.* 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspeakable Name

Without making too big a deal about it, I might point out that the multiple removals of the mere MENTION of ED that occurred today. The deletion of the mere MENTION of a website is precisely why we need to clarify this page and specify that BADSITES is NOT policy.

As we see-- the slippery slope truly is rather slippery in this case. --Alecmconroy 23:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the apparent point was that using it in that way, in a section header complete with exclamation points, had an unnecessarily inflammatory feel to it. The various mentions of the "unspeakable" site in the main body text have been left alone. Incidentally, any time I run into the initials "ED" elsewhere, like in spam e-mails regarding Erectile Dysfunction, or discussions regarding organizations' Executive Directors, it makes me momentarily wonder just what that Attack Site has to do with whatever they're discussing! *Dan T.* 23:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No doubt it has an unnecessary inflammatory feel to it...that is precisely Miltopia's goal...better known as trolling.--MONGO 05:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please-- don't accuse anyone of being a troll or ED partisans for the duration of this discussion. If you can't abide by NPA, you can't substantively help us figure out how to make changes to it. --Alecmconroy 06:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, MONGO this page is not intended for you to be making personal remarks regardless of how well-grounded you believe your grudges against me are. For the last time, I and I'm sure everyone else active on this page would appreciate if you would cease your personal remarks about me and finally move on to discussing the policy page you have edit warred over. Milto LOL pia 06:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• The last time I paid any real attention to ED, links to it, and even the very mention of it, were being removed with extreme prejudice by an arbitrator. Maybe something has changed since then, but I was always under the impression that even mentioning ED was highly discouraged. - Crockspot 16:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion so far

About a week ago, I posted requesting that the BADSITES language be removed until it gains consensus or else proof be demonstrated that that language has consensus. A few days later, the RFCs were posted, and since then, we've had a chance to hear from most of the usual suspects who've frequented these discussions, although of course, hopefully more opinions will continue to pour in. That said, we have gotten a lot of responses, and it seems like we can see the general shape the discussion has taken.

The central conflict at issue is what I will term the the hard version of the BADSITES. To paraphrase:

No linking to sites that harass/attack/out. Removals not subject to 3RR. Violations lead to blocks or bans.

In addition to that hard position, there are other soft wordings that have been introduced, for example-- "Editors should not link for the purposes of harassment" or "See other policy proposals", etc. Except for those who feel the soft wordings don't go far enough, the actual statements contained in these these soft wordings appear to relatively undisputed.

• Looking over the discussion so far, I see at least 8 editors who appear to have voiced total support for the hard version. (Will Beback, Tom Harrison, B, Samiharris ,Crockspot ,jossi, ElinorD, & MONGO)
• Meanwhile, I think I see at least 11 editors who have expressed disagreement with the hard version. (Alecmconroy, Risker, Dan T., Viridae, WilyD, krimpet, Miltopia, AnonEMouse, Cla68, Academy Leader, LessHeard vanU).

(if anyone feels I'm incorrectly evaluated them, please please please speak up).

Now, consensus isn't easy to gauge sometimes. We don't vote, we discuss. The numbers will change as new opinions are added, but the basic shape here (along with the basic shape at WP:BADSITES) seems to be "roughly evenly divided, possibly a slim majority in opposition". It may be just plain "evenly divided"-- but any way you slice it, it seem pretty clear that there is no consensus at this time for the proposed policy "No linking to sites that attack/harass/out, removals not subject to 3RR". And given the unending discussion over such proposals over the course of the past year, it seems unlikely that this proposal is going to achieve consensus any time this decade.

So, hopefully, we're about at the point where we can agree to disagree, but can recognize that the disagreement does exist, and that kernel of the BADSITES/NPA#EL proposals does not have consensus. ---Alecmconroy 15:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO at the time I initially forked this material from WP:BADSITES was the only editor who expressed any sort of reservations that it might be incompatible with NPA.[10] Looking back on it now, I admire his insight and intuition. The hard position does seem to be incompatible with the spirit and letter of NPA, and in itself also represents a weakening of WP:3RR, as it creates an exception to it. After the protection is lifted, I support deleting this text here and resuming this discussion over at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, whether or not the ArbCom case has finished, as any outcomes there could also be taken into account at the new page. That page is not starting from text taken from the failed BADSITES proposal, and so there should be a better chance of arriving at a consensus should one be achievable in the short or long term.—AL ^FOCUS! 18:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"the hard position does seem to be incompatible with the spirit and letter of NPA".... "a weakening of 3RR".... This lawyerly tone troubles me. Links to harassment have never been permitted, nor will ever be permitted, no matter what a policy page says. Appropriate links have never been forbidden, nor will ever be forbidden, no matter what a policy page says. I'm a bit puzzled what you're after here. What's the practical point of taking an essentially harmless paragraph out of the policy? It doesn't even have the BEANS problem that previous versions had. What's the point of removing it just now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

More or less to redirect the debate over to a proposal page rather than have it continue to drag out over a policy page. I wouldn't expect the long-term debate to be over if we did so, I'd fully expect the drama to continue, but doing so may at least allow some measure of peace and decorum to return to NPA. I wouldn't have any problems with a soft version of the text to remain here, but as Alecmconroy has pointed out, the discussion (and related disruptions) have been hinging over how much "teeth" to give it, and as no one has proposed a full-scale re-write of NPA to make it compatible with the hard version of BADSITES I no longer think it belongs here as a long-term addition.

When I forked it, I thought it could be toned down. The debate and related edit wars over the degree to which this is possible continue mainly as an ongoing disruption to NPA, and everyone concerned would probably be better off if the disruption was removed to a more isolated location.—AL ^FOCUS! 19:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving the discussion there; why does that mean we have to remove the "offending" paragraph from this page. It's doing no harm except for this conversation being somewhat disruptive (I guess), and that would cease if we all just agreed to go talk about it there instead of here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's here people will be claiming it's policy just because it's attached to a policy page. Eliminating that object and moving the discussion over to Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment will allow for the continued development of any useful concepts and implementation strategies, such as are being considered in the current Arb-Case, without a direct historical connection to "BADSITES," which prominent Wikipedians on both sides have been saying was initially proposed for malicious purposes, though for quite different reasons obviously. Further discussion would continue with the current Arb case as a base, rather than from the BADSITES proposal and all its baggage. I know the ArbCom does not write policy, but even with all the humor and mudslinging thrown in I think they are taking a far more nuanced and considered approach to this now than they did in the initial MONGO decision, which was rash and seemed to later inspire Denny Colt to write BADSITES. I think the new proposal, working from the current Arb case, stands a better chance of achieving a lasting consensus of some sort, whether up or down.—AL ^FOCUS! 00:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the new proposal has a better chance. There's no need to hold out for text to be removed from this policy before working on that proposal. You say that "people will be claiming it's policy..." ...and? What actual harm is actually being done by this paragraph sitting here? Unless you can point to a concrete harm being done, I'm going to keep questioning why it's so important to you to get it out of the policy. What specific appropriate link is being threatened, in a way that causes you to lose all faith in the ability of administrators to behave reasonably (as if we're somehow all enslaved to the letter of each policy - which has never been true)? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even looking at the links themselves or the issues behind them, but that for the discussion on the "BADSITES" proposal to move on some version of it needed to be incorporated elsewhere. The past seven months have not produced a lasting compromise here. Removing the section now would not kill the underlying issues themselves but allow the discussion on them to be refocused elsewhere. Will Beback was earlier saying on this page that Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment was useless as it was already covered by policy. While I don't know if he meant this policy, removing this text would remove the basis for any such claim and allow the ongoing debate, which we are all tired of and irritated over, to at least move on to new ground.—AL ^FOCUS! 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the case currently at ArbCom will test the extent to which link removals are covered by policy (and ArbCom certainly knows they aren't enslaved to whichever version of this page happens to be protected this week). There's nothing about this page that actually prevents work getting done at Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, so no removal will "allow the ongoing debate", which is ongoing anyway; if Will chooses not to participate, that's his right. It's all a work in progress, and by the time we're each one month older the landscape will have shifted. Let's leave this page alone for a spell, and see what ArbCom has to say. Any link removals undertaken in the meanwhile will be added to the case, I trust. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that use of links for harassment has never been permitted, nor will ever be permitted; this is not synonymous with links to harassment. For instance, if I were to write "This is where GTBacchus lives", and link it to a site about the monkey house at the San Diego Zoo, then that would be a personal attack and I ought to be reprimanded for it, but there'd be no call for suppressing all links to the SD Zoo site elsewhere. If I were to write "This is where GTBacchus lives" and link it to something somewhere on the Net that has your real name and actual home address, with the implication that I'm encouraging people to go there and stalk or harrass you in person, then that would be a blockable offense on my part, though the pages I'm linking to might be in sites (such as a local government's property tax records or a university's staff, faculty, student or alumni directory) that might be perfectly fine to link to in other contexts. On the other hand, one of the never-forbidden "appropriate links" might be to something that includes content that could be termed harassment, such as what Michael Moore did regarding a Wikipedian, or what the GodHatesFags site does to all homosexuals and others it dislikes. It wouldn't be appropriate to make that link for the purpose of harrassing ("I think you're GAY... see what GodHatesFags says about your kind!"... "Michael Moore hates you... Ha Ha!") but it is appropriate to link to it as the official site of a notable entity on which we have an article. *Dan T.* 22:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to harassment; links for harassment... the point is that we apply judgment when deciding what to do in these cases. The situations you describe aren't in any way mysterious or confusing. There's very little grey area on this issue, and what grey area there is can be dealt with when it comes up. There's no need to make any kind of fuss over whether the wording of the policy is tweaked precisely to cover every case. When it comes up, we'll be there, and we'll be reasonable about it, no matter what kind of language is written into policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the paragraph doing any harm? The Making Lights edit war caused a lot of hurt feelings, about 100 edit wars, and let to animosity between numerous big names in the science fiction community and Wikipedia. The Michael Moore case again led to anger, frustration, loss of reputation, and needless editwarring. And each of these incidents was directly traceable caused by NPA#EL. As long as a hard position is in it text, no matter what disclaimers we have about how it's not policy, people will look to it to justify their edit warring against consensus. --Alecmconroy 00:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I'm not familiar with the cases in question. Can you provide some links? Even before seeing them though, I'd have to point out that nothing written in any policy can cause anybody to edit-war. Edit-warring is caused by people behaving like children instead of communicating with each other as adults, and it always takes two. No policy ever excuses edit-warring. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm using edit-war a little wrong. If 90% of the people on a page support inclusion of a link, but one editor removing it, only to be reverted by different people, is that an edit war? The vast majority have consensus on their side, but the deletor feels he his exempt from the 3RR, and indeed, feels the link is REQUIRED to be deleted. That's the issue-- NPA#EL has led to multiple extended conflicts caused by people who feel their actions are mandated by NPA#EL.

For specific examples seem My Evidence in he arbcom case, where i've picked out the biggest problems NPA#EL has caused. DanT's evidence also has a more exhaustive list. --Alecmconroy 01:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the numbers really don't matter. If a good-faith contributor makes an edit and you undo it, and then the re-make it, and you re-undo it, then you're edit-warring. If someone seems stubborn about something the only correct action is to put the editing buttons down, talk to them, and if that doesn't work, get more people involved. Maybe it takes some sorting out whether or not a particular site should be linked to or not. This conversation can happen without edit-warring.

The real point, though, is that we're not really talking about having this page in a state that will make people think one thing or another. The editors in question does what they do, regardless of what a policy page says. If they believes that some piece of word-magic here can justify acting repeatedly against consensus, and if you support that belief by trying to cast an opposite piece of word-magic, then you're both being silly. The proper way to handle a conflict is neither to edit-war nor to run to the skirts of a policy and its supposed "technicalities". The proper way is to discuss.

Thank you for the link. That case is rather interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be right-- perhaps removing the parts that don't have consensus won't stem the edit wars over the issue. All the same, it seems like it's worth a try. Maybe it will solve "widespread purging of notable sites" problem we've been having. If not, hopefully it will makes those problems at least a little more manageable. You might be right, and maybe people will do what they're going to do regardless-- but fixing the text here seems like a useful step to try towards solving the problem. --Alecmconroy 01:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, what's going to help is getting a decision from ArbCom in the above linked case. I'm part-way through it now, and it's fascinating. I just got through Guy's evidence section, which was excellent and insightful. I'm inclined to agree with him that we're not actually dealing with grey areas here. The links in question tend to be clearly appropriate or clearly inappropriate, and a clarification from ArbCom seems likely to stem any removal of appropriate links. Until that case closes, it's largely irrelevant what we do with this page (maybe we can add lots of pictures of cats or something?). The peace gained by leaving it alone is worth more than making sure it's in the "right" version for the next couple of weeks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no particular urgency here. If people really believe the conversation being held at Arbcom is likely to generate consensus, I'm not opposed to waiting. But the hard version of BADSITES doesn't look like it's getting any more consensus among Arbiters than it has among Editors. And Arbcom's rulings don't dictate policy. They do not even affect policy, except insofar as they change the minds of the community. --Alecmconroy 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

JzG said this particularly well: "Edit warring is not "caused" by the posting or removal of a link,it is caused by a failure to then sit down and talk." That's gold. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not the participant in the evidence page I'd have you read first, given that he starts off his section by bashing me, but I guess there are some good quotes there too. However, I'm not as inclined as he or you to see things as black and white; the real world is full of grey areas, no matter how much you try to oversimplify it to pretend they don't exist. *Dan T.* 04:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read it first; I read it in the order I found it on the page. You don't know very much about me if you think I see the world in black and white. Careful you don't tell grandpa how to suck eggs. I haven't yet seen evidence of a lot of grey area in this particular case. All of the links in question have either been clearly appropriae or clearly inappropriate, from what I've seen. I'm rather open to being shown greyer cases, if you have evidence of any. Perhaps they're further down the page, and I just haven't seen them yet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding grey, remember that I'm the one generally suggesting that potential grey areas are best dealt with by refraining from overspecifying our policies. Do you even know what version of this page I support? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure which version you support, since you've avoided specifically endorsing any of them as far as I know. And I also don't know for sure which of the various "BADSITES" instances itemized on the evidence page you would categorize as clearly appropriate and which as clearly inappropriate. But I do know that, if you were to come up with and write such a list (like, hypothetically speaking, "Encyclopedia Dramatica: Clearly inappropriate to link to; Antisocialmedia: Clearly inappropriate; Nielsen Hayden's Making Light: Clearly appropriate; etc.), there would be others, equally convinced of the black-and-white rightness of their own opinions on the subject, who would disagree with you on one or more of the items in the list; after all, each one of them has been the subject of intense warring, and despite the attempts to characterize it as purely being a fight against "trolls", some of the wars have had prominent editors and admins on both sides. At one point, as I note in my evidence section, an editor was blocked for "linking to an attack site" for inserting into the article on the Essjay scandal a link to the Wikipedia Review message thread that is actually mentioned in the article as an important part of the history of the unfolding of the scandal, as it is where the facts about Essjay were first exposed. So, if you call this a clearly appropriate thing to link to, you're going against a prominent admin; if you call it clearly inappropriate, what encyclopedic justification do you have for this? *Dan T.* 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic justification"... oh, my. That sounds so formal and legalistic. I just think that these are issues that reasonable people can work out by talking with each other. Nobody is ever forced to edit-war, so that problem is easily dispensed with. Now, if a link is removed by someone as being a possible attack-link, and someone else puts in back, then it's time to talk about that link and sort out what's going on. Lots of room for grey there, ok? I would say it's fair to err on the side of omitting the link while discussion is ongoing, because if it really does threaten the safety of an editor here, we can do without it while we figure that out.

I don't wish to characterize this as "good guys" versus "trolls", because I don't believe that. I also don't have any problem disagreeing with a "prominent admin"; it happens all the time. Once everything comes out in the wash, it's pretty clear that there's no compelling encyclopedic reason to link to WR that outweighs the disadvantages of linking there. I'm perfectly happy to have this conversation with any admin, however prominent, and I'm confident that we'll sort it out, because I know how not to edit war, and how to talk with people. If we all practiced that skill, we'd run into a lot fewer problems. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, you have a really interesting take on all this. I'm not sure I understand your point of view. What I see here is that a policy page has been edit-warred since April. Text has been added without achieving consensus. People have defaced the encyclopedia on the basis of this "policy", and there's been constant bickering. I look at all that and see a problem to be solved. There's no emergency mandating it be solved today or tommorrow, but we've put off solving it since april, and the problem's gotten worse.

It's all well and good to dismiss policies as mere "Word Magic", you pacific-northwest hippie bacchanalian anarchist. (giant and friendly grin). But words are magical-- the pen is mightier than the sword, and this alleged policy claims to be mightier than consensus. --Alecmconroy 08:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Defaced the encyclopedia" is a bit prejudicial. Links come and go, with very little harm done by their existence, and even less done by their absence. As for the constant bickering, it really does just come down to a few people, whom we all know by name (screen name, that is). This ArbCom case will sort out the major issues, and the remaining issues can be sorted out by reasonable people behaving reasonably.

As for the pen being mightier than the sword, that's generally true, but... look, we're not dealing with automata like The Terminator, who are programmed by our written policies to execute them to the letter. We all know that these policies are just things we write down sometimes. We're dealing with something like half a dozen people who have certain ideas about what is the best way to keep Wikipedia safe for editing. There's a disagreement about linking to certain (again, maybe half a dozen) sites, and when that might or might not be appropriate. ArbCom is going to tell us something soon, and that will probably push us into a more stable equilibrium than we've been hanging in for the last few months. Let's just follow that case, and not worry about this page for a while. Let's keep our eyes on the prize, which isn't some policy page today, it's Wikipedia in the future. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help that there is virtually no input from those advocating the "hard" language on the talk page, and when there is input it's generally person-oriented right off the bat. It's a shame that this was not brought up during the attack sites arbitration. Milto LOL pia 20:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that arbitration still ongoing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may, there seem to be many different possible positions on this not just the hard and the soft ones. I for example, have no objection to what amounts to a "hard" policy on attack sites as long as it is applying to talk pages, userpages, wikipedia space etc. However, we cannot allow a hard policy that interferes with necessary linking in main space. To do so would both damage our credibility and interfere with WP:NPOV which is as Jimbo has said non-negotiable. In the Michael Moore case, some of the links were needed in main space. I could imagine a similar situation with ED and if that occurred we would have to link to it. This may also be connected to the general issue of what constitutes trolling. If someone is trolling, we are free to remove it, we don't need a detailed rule that any link to certain websites is a priori trolling. JoshuaZ 23:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes-- there are LOTS of different positions in between hard and soft. The hard position-- no links anywhere ever, has been defeated numerous times, and I don't think it's ever going to get consensus. The soft position seems to have total consensus in itself (noting the objections of those who also want stronger language in addition to ths soft position.) In between are all kinds of medium positions: link to SITES okay but not directly to harassment, link only in articles when needed, links are discouraged but allowed, etc. I don't yet know which of these could represent consensus-- but Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment is the place we'll find out. --Alecmconroy 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that where the encyclopedia is concerned, it's most important to keep from harmful restrictions on necessary links in the actual article space, and other areas of the site are of relative insignificance. However, I won't concede to the forces of censorship who want to control what we can talk about on talk/user/project pages either; I see no benefit to knuckling under to the peculiar taboos of a minority there. *Dan T.* 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, before posting that, did you consider at all just how distasteful it sounds? "Knuckling under to the peculiar taboos of a minority" is the most neutral and fair description you can come up with for what people such as ElinorD are suggesting? Are you even trying to see this issue from more than one perspective, or aren't you the guy who doesn't like black-and-white thinking? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan's comment while improper is somewhat understandable since there has been little input as far as I can see from those advocating a "hard" version of Attack Sites/Bad Sites. However, Dan's misses a point, in that Wikipedia is censored all the time in non-article space when to do otherwise would result in disruption. That's the entire point of WP:NPA, we are in essence censoring people. It is only article space that remains and must remain uncensored. We are after all, trying to build an encyclopedia here and must not lose sight of that goal. JoshuaZ 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I keep getting in trouble for it, and I really should try to find more tactful ways of putting it, but I really do find the "attack site link" business to be a personal taboo of a handful of people, akin to the revulsion at the word "moist" discussed in the Language Log recently. And regarding censorship to stop disruption, one would have to consider which would cause the most disruption: leaving the link or trying to suppress it. In most cases, a link placed in a context not intended as a direct personal attack causes little or no disruption until somebody objects loudly to it. *Dan T.* 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, there's no link, the exclusion of which would screw up someone's life. There might be links, the inclusion of which could screw up someone's life. If someone suggests that a link is in that latter category, then it's entirely reasonable to leave the link out until we can decide in private conversation whether or not it's safe. Edit-warring over its insertion, when someone has raised a safety concern, is valuing editor safety far lower than I'm willing to. Leaving a link out will not hurt anybody, so if including it might hurt someone, let's leave it out until we can make a more informed decision. Most of the links in question (e.g., Michael Moore) can be rendered safe with a simple letter or phone call, at which point they can go back in, no harm done. Those that can't be addressed in this way, we pretty much don't need. I've yet to see a counterexample. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, though I can't say it's "screwed it up", this whole debate has had an effect, perhaps negative, on my life, as my own obsessive-compulsive nature has caused me to spend many many hours arguing this point which could perhaps have been spent on more productive pursuits (perhaps even including improving this encyclopedia), as well as tossing and turning at night in a state of agitation over it. It's probably not great for my health. *Dan T.* 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, the fact that this debate has stressed you out doesn't really incline us in any particular direction, because obviously editors on all sides of the issue find it stressful. I'd say that you have every reason to be less bothered by it than someone who has been sent city maps with their place of employment circled, accompanying references to their anatomy. I suggest you take care of your health and get plenty of rest - we'd hate to lose you due to nervous exhaustion. As far as obsessive-compulsive behavior, you might want to talk to a medical professional about that if it really bothers you, or interferes with your ability to function normally. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I doubt you would feel that way if you were one of the people who was attacked or were friends with one of the people who had been attacked. People have been very hurt by some of these sites and you need to understand that. JoshuaZ 02:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But I have been... I was on one of Brandt's versions of his "Hivemind" page, and one version of Merkey's "Merkeylaw". I've been getting flamed online since my college freshman year 25 years ago. I live with it, and have never advocated censoring any of it. *Dan T.* 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have as well and haven't minded it that much, but a) some of the attacks on certain users have been even nastier than some of worst Merkey and Brandt stuff. Moreover, different people have different degrees of tolerance for this sort of thing. JoshuaZ 03:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, getting flamed online is very, very, very different from having someone telephone you at home and threaten to rape and kill your wife. Has that happened to you or a friend of yours? It's happened to an admin here. While I can understand your frustration with what you see as lack of communication from certain parties, we're not going to advance the conversation or find consensus by assuming that anybody's being unreasonable.

I think it's very likely that those favoring a hard ban are interested in protecting Wikipedians from real threats, which is very different from trying to knuckle others under their private hang-ups. I also think it's very likely that those opposed to a hard ban have good reasons for opposing it, whether they be concerns that we're missing out on encyclopedic content, or else concerns that a hard ban would do more harm than good, for whatever reason. Until we can all agree that there are reasonable people on all sides of the question, we're going to stay in stalemate.

Communication is best fostered by a little bit of active listening, in which we assume that others are making valid points, and try to find those valid points in the words they give us. If you look for the best in others, most people will rise to the occasion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Language Log, a notable and respectable blog on language issues, has sometimes linked to Encyclopedia Dramatica when discussing such things as Internet memes. This once again underscores my point that a taboo against linking to sites like that is hardly something that comes naturally or is universally shared. And Slate just now linked to a Wikipedia Review thread after quoting Daniel Brandt on an article about Google, and the New York Times has linked to Antisocialmedia... face it, these taboos are not very widely held outside a small circle within Wikipedia. *Dan T.* 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting. Could you email me the Slate link please? JoshuaZ 19:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Since notable unreliable website will be noted in reliable sources, we can simply link to the reliable sources. There's no need to link to ED just because they are mentioned in Slate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, your point is rather a non sequitur here. It is true that each publication makes its own decisions about where to link, and that we may link to sites where the New York Times doesn't link, and vice-versa. We don't have to come to the same conclusions as any particular other publication. Rather than addressing the point about how civil interlocutors treat one another in a discussion, you've ignored that point in favor of prejudicially describing others' objections as "taboos". It's as if you didn't read what I said about communication. Interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo

In the Italic text at the top of the page, it says “ares”, not “areas”. I can’t change it, because the page is protected. — H92 (t · c · no) 12:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fixed; thanks for pointing it out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem! — H92 (t · c · no) 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Intentions

I'd like to hear some thoughts about the intentions of people who link to these sites. I'm talking especially about questionable sites. How relevant is it? For example, if someone linking to, say, Wikipedia Review (since I can't think of anything else between ED, clearly unacceptable, and Wikitruth, mostly ok)? If they link to an impersonal thread griping about some process or the activity at an article, where the linker is trying to point out criticism of some goings-on, what should the reaction be? What about when a person (as I have seen) links to a thread about themselves to demonstrate... something?

Please bear in mind this should not be about WR specifically but a harshly critical site of disputable linkability in general. Milto LOL pia 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think serious, prolonged discussion of intention is something of a derailment. We can't really make valid or verifiable statements about someone's intentions, unless they are self-reported and then seem consistent with the effects of their actions. In any case, it is the consequence of some action (linking, forking controversial content to an established policy page, whatever) that should be used to determine the acceptability or appropriateness of that action, not conjectures about someone's intentions, however good or bad. (And then what are the intentions of these conjectures?)—AL ^FOCUS! 20:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that exhaustive, circular debate about one's intentions is counter-productive, but I don't think my wording in the policy encouraged that; rather, it was advice to editors making judgments (especially potential blocking admins) to not jump to conclusions and to consider a person's intentions when deciding what type of action or reaction would best benefit the encyclopedia. Milto LOL pia 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do agree, that is why I supported it, but every solution here seems to open another can of worms.—AL ^FOCUS! 14:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure OK. The other day I submitted On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog to WP:AFC. An editor added a tag to it, suggesting the article might not be notable, simply because she had never heard of it, despite having been online herself since the mid-eighties. Of course, that's silly, and it called to mind a thread I had seen at Wikipedia Review (while trying to understand what's so bad about it, because of very these discussions), lampooning a similar comment by JzG that certain female opera writers weren't notable because they weren't on his IPod.[11] So, in my response to the editor who semi-rejected my submission, I was tempted to link to that post, not to further lampoon or embarrass User:JzG, but to show this editor that standards of personally never having heard of something are not only not a part of WP:N, but actually comic fodder to people beyond our own stomping grounds.

What we should really do, of course, is just create WP:Wikipedia Review ourselves, and keep our own list ever every dumb edit we've each ever made as individuals or as a community (something akin to WP:LAME -- or wait, is that an attack page?? Oops, now I can't even link to wikipedia!), then we'd have content control. We've all had our share of lameness in one way or another. -- 67.98.206.2 22:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak reason to link to Wikipedia review. It's not like we don't have pages such as WP:ILIKEIT detailing why "I've never heard of it" or "I've heard of it" are poor notability arguments. That's hardly a compelling reason to link to a site with a habitual practice of publishing personal information about our volunteers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that in a community based around the gathering of information, the (extremely strong) burden of proof must always be on the side of those who want to limit what sort of information can be discussed or linked to, rather than the side that finds that a reason exists to bring up or link to something in the course of a discussion. *Dan T.* 01:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. You seem to be suggesting that the weakest possible reason to link to a site should outweigh the possibility of real safety threats coming from that site. We're not committed to the indiscriminate revealing of all possible information; we're committed to building a free encyclopedia. Swapping stories about a funny thread encountered on a message board somewhere, if it doesn't advance that goal, isn't particularly needed, and if there's a good reason not to do it, then we should pay attention to that reason, and do so in a way that is unprejudiced, thoughtful, respectful and considerate of those who voice real concerns. Does that seem so wrong to you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the site? I wouldn't expect some random editor who I've only just come into contact with to crawl around the site and discover all their ins and outs. It's simply an amusing message board post to link to, which would have gotten my point across. I don't see the harm in that. I used to post at the Straight Dope message board, which had, at the time, an area called the barbecue pit so that otherwise intelligent posters who got into conflict had somewhere to gripe. It's too bad Wikipedia itself doesn't provide that, because it's something inherent, I believe, to the online world (flame wars as us old timers called them). Since we don't have it, it spills over to somewhere else is all. As far as outing, editors violating WP:COI should be outed and I'm not certain I've yet seen an example of some actual "outing for outings sake" otherwise. Ironically, if there is such an example you can't point me too it..... -- User:67.98.206.2 04:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure I can; I can tell you that Encyclopedia Dramatica does outing for the sake of mockery, which is different from exposing COI, especially when all they do is point and laugh at someone's love life. The hivemind page, wherever that one is, seems to be about finding the identities of as many WP admins as possible, whether or not they're individually suspected of COI. (That's my impression of it, anyhow.) Do those sound necessary and proper to you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, good examples. Brandt's site certainly is largely outing-for-outings sake, and ED is certainly engaging in mockery. So, no, I don't see why anyone would ever want to link to those, or why we would want to permit them. -- 67.98.206.2 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I worry the claims that "Outing and Harassing as long as you make COI allegations is okay" goes to far. We should instead look to the intention. If an editor is genuinely trying to have a legitimate discussion, it's cool. If an editor is intentionally lying about people's conflict of interests, it's not cool. If a notable site alleges an unproven COI, that's not reason to delete them from articles. If a non-notable unreliable site alleges an unproven COI, that's not a reason TO link to them in articles. --Alecmconroy 11:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "as long as" either, as that created too big of an exception. Spreading gossip across the wiki should certainly be frowned upon either way, and I've changed WP:BADLINKS to reflect that.[12] -- 67.98.206.2 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would think that, in a case of real conflict of interest, if someone thinks there's an editor inserting bias under a COI... then the way to proceed with that is not by setting up your own outing site and linking to it here, but by contacting the press and doing it right. A journalist using professional standards will be in a position to decide whether you have a case or not, and they'll also know about journalistic ethics, and won't handle the case by publishing an editor's name, address and phone number. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt every editor with a COI would be picked up by the media! -- 67.98.206.2 17:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of something high-profile, but in general you're right. In such case, it would be appropriate to email any evidence with personally identifying information to ArbCom, rather than to publicize it on publicly viewable pages. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The right answer for the right reason

On Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, Will Beback said:

If we can't source material properly we shouldn't include it, instead of lowering our standards to allow for poorly-sourced assertions. (We've all seen talk page arguments like: "BSpears.forum is the only site with postings on her latest baby formula. We've gotta use it!" or ""AryanNation.com is a neutral source for the global Zionist plot!") We pick and choose between reliable and unreliable sources all day long. A site that is used or intended for harassment of Wikipedia editors is obviously non-neutral, and is probably self-published or a forum. Those are sources we'd only accepts under exemptions already. If we simply remove the exceptional acceptance of otherwise unreliable sources we'd solve most of the problem without blocking use of sources like the New Yorker. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not changing our linking policy in the slightest. Unreliable and Non-notable are still unreliable and non-notable. We're just saying that attacking Wikipedians can't AUTOMATICALLY disqualify a site and can't outweigh all other factors. Sites are going to be forbidden BECAUSE they are non-notable and unreliable, not JUST because they attack. BADSITES and NPA#EL claimed to be able to overrule RS, EL, 3RR, and maybe even NPOV-- that is why it fails.

I think one thing we're struggled with is that to some people, principles are very important. Getting the right answer isn't enough-- you have to get the right answer for the right reasons. If I say the answer to 2+2 is 4 because I understand the properties of addition, that's right. If I say 2+2 is 4 because I rolled a dice to find the answer and a 4 came up-- that's wrong-- even if that got the same end result as the right way.

On the other hand, some people are completely results focused. "If we get the right answer, it doesn't really matter what justification we use, so long as it comes out okay. It doesn't matter if I use tea-leaves or tarot cards or dice or flawed logic or anything-- the important question is, does my method get the right answers? If it does, who cares HOW I get the answers, all that matters is I got them".

So in this case, we all agree that "sites that attack wikipedians" and "unreliable, non-notable sites" tend to be the same sites. BADSITES says "attack sites are forbidden". RS/EL say "Unreliable, non-notable sites are forbidden". To some people, it doesn't really matter WHY we remove a link-- all that's important is that we remove it.

But to me, and to a lot of people, the why is EVERYTHING. If you tell a webmaster "We removed your link because you're not a reliable news source", they understand it's nothing personal. If you tell them "We removed your link because you attack us", it's very personal. If you say "No linking to unreliable, non-notable sources", we seem reputable and objective. IF we say "No linking to sites that attack us", we seem petty and vindictive. If you say "Your site doesn't meet a reliable source criteria, but maybe if you change things, one day it will meet those criteria", then you come across as a person of integrity. If you say "You're attacking my friend, so I took away your Wikipedia coverage and won't give it back until you change your site", then we're appear to be using our power as editors to bully others.

We all agree that ED is unreliable and non-notable, and shouldn't be linked to. But what do we, as a project, say about why we don't link to ED? BADSITES would have the answer be "If you hit us, we'll hit you back. You attack us, we'll make you pay a price." RS/EL/NPOV would have the answer be "ED isn't notable or reliable, and links to non-notable unreliable sites have no place on our project".

Even if BADSITES and RS/EL always gave us the same results, the question of "Why was this link removed" is still essential. The "why" is incredibly important. It's the different between petty vindictiveness and journalist objectivity.

In practice, though, the "why" isn't the only reason why BADSITES is bad. In practice, it hasn't just restricted itself to non-notable sites. Good stuff's been deleted too, the deletions embarrass the project, and such incidents would happen again if we weren't stepping in to fix the problem. --Alecmconroy 11:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The general presumption is that all self-published sites are unreliable. We make limited exceptions to that presumption in a very few circumstances. I propose that we restrict those exceptions even further. So we'd be saying to webmasters "we don't link to your site because it is self-published and because it does not meet any of our exceptions". Right now, WP:V says:

• Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

All we'd need to do is add another limit, such as :

• it does not have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia.

Similar text could be added to WP:EL. Those small changes would cover almost all instances of external harassment.

As for "journalist objectivity", I'm not aware of any journalistic principle that requires using marginally-reliable sources that publish the home addresses of journalists for the purpose of harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If they're not a reliable or notable source-- why do we need any further restrictions? We can preserve our integrity and still exclude them. If they are reliable and notable, but forbidden, than why should we exclude them just because they out Wikipedians, rather than abortion clinic workers or alleged pedophiles (who haven't been convicted)? There's a whole internet full of people outing each other-- any policy that elevates Wikipedians above Humans isn't going to meet the requirements of objectivity.

As for harassing-- it's find to discourage such links, but a total prohibition will be abused and violate NPOV. 99% of harassment sites them aren't notable. But when they ARE notable, who will win? NPOV or BADSITES? --Alecmconroy 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to treat sites in conflict with Wikipedia the same as sites in conflict with anybody else; they're either reliable sources or not depending on other factors unrelated to the fact that they criticize us. Also, using a site as a source is far from the only reason we might ever link to it; many articles have external links to sites with relevant supplemental information about the subject which might not actually be in use as a source for any fact mentioned in the article, and non-article places such as talk, project, and user pages have an extremely wide variety of reasons for linking to things. *Dan T.* 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliability is not an absolute quality. Some sources are highly reliable on a wide range of topics, while others are barely reliable on only a single topic. There are many factors we use in establishing the reliability of a sources, such as the stability of the content and the presence of a review or editing process. A website may grow or decline in reliability due to actions of the owners. Self-published websites are barely reliable in a narrow range of uses, the existence of a COI simply adds enough weight to the negative side of the scale to tip the balance towards not being reliable enough for our purposes. If, despite being unreliable, a self-published source become notable anyway there will be other sources reporting on it that we can use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It shows an unseemly thin-skinned-ness to let criticism of us tip our scales. If anything, I'd rather bend over backwards to show we're not fazed or prejudiced by criticism. *Dan T.* 00:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about criticism, we're talking about harassment. Publishing an editor's work phone number and encouraging people to call it isn't criticism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're proposing a new incarnation of BADSITES, this time based on RS instead of NPA. It won't fly. Badsites doesn't have consensus, it isn't getting consensus-- no matter what policy framework its wrapped up in. We discuss and link to people we don't like if they're notable enough to merit inclusion. --Alecmconroy 08:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The application of "conflict of interest with wikipedia" to outside sites is even more absurd, I'm afraid. We're neutral, the people we cover can be Op-ED or partisan. COI applies to US and US alone. If you want to bring COI to bear in this situation-- it seems like any editor who removes a link to a site which criticizes himself has a COI. That's the only bearing COI has here. --Alecmconroy 08:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What I'm proposing isn't a reincarnation of anything. Judging by the results of the RfC above, and the ArbCom findings currently being decided, it appears that there is a sizable majority that favors having a policy that restricts linking to external harassment. The so-called "BADSITES" proposal was just one concept, and its rejection needn't doom all future attempts to address the same recurring problem.

As for COI, we already deal with COIs that involve Wikipedia. We don't allow people to edit who are threatening to sue the WMF because they have a conflict of interest. Likewise, self-published websites that host active harassment of WP editors have a conflict of interest that renders them unusuable as reliable sources. Again, we're talking about harassment, not criticism. The two are different but opponents of this policy can't seem to keep them separate. Are you unaware of the difference? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

People who aren't Wikipedia editors can't have a conflict of interest about wikipedia. COI is when an person's duty as an editor conflicts with their duty as a employee, for example. If someone doesn't edit Wikipedia, it's not a conflict of interest-- it's just an interest!  :) Don't get me wrong, they can still be unreliable, but they're not conflicted. --Alecmconroy 10:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If I sue WMF in court, even if I were never an editor, then I would have a COI regarding WP. Likewise, the "petty, vindictive" website postings of folks dedicated to harassing WP editors is a COI with Wikipedia. Saying "Alecmconroy seems to make poor edits" is a criticism. Saying "Call Alecmconroy's office at XXX and tell him he's an ass" is not criticism and creates a conflict of interest between the presumed source and Wikipedia editors in the same way as a lawsuit creates a conflict. A self-published site creates the COI and it can remove it by dropping the harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get how someone who isn't even an editor can have a conflict of interest. If somebody runs a website entitled "Wikipedia Sucks", that's not a conflict of interest, it's an opinion. --Alecmconroy 11:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Were talking about harassment, not criticism. Are you familiar with the difference? If somebody sues the WMF or harasses Wikipeia editors, then they are harming the project. At that point their self-published website should no longer be used as a reliable source to help the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems to conflate two different issues. Whether the site is harassing or suing us is distinct from whether or not it is a reliable source. In general self-published material fails WP:EL, but on the occasions such a site does meet WP:EL whether or not it has an additional COI doesn't change that. It might help to remove the self-publishing issue from this hypothetical and consider the case of the New York Times suing WMF. We would still link to the NYT in that case. JoshuaZ 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody claimed that there's a "large majority" in favor of a link ban. I don't see the above poll that way. It's hard to count the "votes" exactly because not everybody used neat bullet points, but it looks to me like a plurality rather than an absolute majority in favor of keeping some sort of a rule about "links to harassment" (with the people against it and the "Other" category adding up to a slightly larger number of people). Then, within this plurality, there's great disagreement over whether they favor a hard, expansionist rule or a much milder and more limited one. *Dan T.* 12:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There certainly isn't the large majority favoring removal that PrivateMusuings and Alecmconroy assumed there was when they sought to delete the material without any survey. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me stop you right there. You need a consensus to MAKE some text into a policy. You do not need a majority to point out that some part of the policy does not have consensus, is not policy, and doesn't belong on the policy page.

We've been very fair-- the disputed text has been given ample time to achieve consensus. When the protection is removed, I'm going to be very disappointed if people continue to reinsert the text that clearly does not have consensus. --Alecmconroy 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are "we"? In the above survey I see ten editors favoring retention, while only about four people seem to haev favored removal. A number of folks seek other alteratives. In other words, there is a consensus to prohibit linking to external harassment. The exact form that the policy should take is under debate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but directly above, you referred to Alec and I, so when he replies with a 'We' I would say it's pretty clear that that refers to... er... Alec and I. Privatemusings 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It was inappropriate to remove the material without seeking community input. The community has responded 10-4 in favor of keeping the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No we haven't. If people have serious doubts about the content of the section, saying that their opinions are irrelevant, just because they don't necessarily want to completely remove the section, is silly. -Amarkov moo! 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To underscore just how silly you're "10-4" count is. I'm guessing you started by automatically counting anyone who posted in the first section to get your tally of "10"-- ignoring the fact that at least two people explained that the disagreed with some part of the current version. Then you in their comments they didn't necessarily support the current version. Then you tallied the second section as "4", ignoring LessHeard's post in that section. Then you proceeded to take all the people who posted in the third section, and completely ignore ALL their opinions!?!? I posted in that third section-- My god, you didn't even count _ME_ in your alleged tally?? Utter silliness, and edit-warring based on such flawed logic would have unpleasant consequences. --Alecmconroy 00:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, if you sincerely, in your heart, after reading over the comments on this page, have come to the conclusion that there is a consensus for NPA#EL, I don't know what to say to you. I listed the names of the individuals who disagree with the EL proposal, you can see for yourself that they have indeed stated such an opinion, and any one of them can speak up if they feel I misunderstood them.

The dispute EXISTS. The EL proposal is HOTLY disputed. If you say it isn't, you're either blinded by passion or resorting to dishonestly. Take it down, don't re-insert it, and if you have a new proposal to make, propose it on the TALK page, not on the policy page. If you try to simply edit war EL into being policy, I'm afraid you're headed down the road to being de-adminned. --Alecmconroy 00:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

after a breath of fresh air....

Progress seems hard to come by. Firstly, per the discussions above, the text in question should be removed. The correct bar is 'would a neutral editor believe there is consensus for its inclusion'? Easy answer.

Second, someone, I believe it was Alec, in one of the areas of this discussion mentioned an aspect that for me hold the greatest chance of success - rules vs. principles.

The community has failed to create a ruleset on this one, because we can't properly define any of the key terms 'attack site', 'harassment' etc. etc. - every single attempt has suffered from subjectivity, and the debate becomes instantly polarized.

This link will be controversial, but I'd encourage readers to click on it, take a look. This is the kind of link we're discussing baning It is Antisocialmedia.net - I can say hand on heart that I'd never heard of this site (except a vague, passing notion that Wordbomb was a bad user) before this discussion came to my attention. What strikes me is that this guy is making points, (maybe not very good ones - though i like the pun 'Orwell's that ends well') and that I am firm in my conviction that a healthy wiki allows us, when relevant, to reference a critic's points, however vitriolic.

I really care about these issues, and am working to move the policy proposal forward. I make the above point in the belief that we need to ground these discussions in real terms, because abstract terms haven't served us well. Please do not edit my comments. Privatemusings 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You've hidden behind a sock account in order to protect a probable pseudonym, yet you are defending the inclusion of links which out the RL identites of WP editors? As explanation you write: "I wish to retain my enjoyment in editing articles, so aim to protect myself from any anger or hot feeling, and I wish any points to stand or fall on their merits." Don't you think that other editors would also like to retain their enjoyment of editing articles, shouldn't they be protected from anger and hot feelings, and shouldn't their contributions be judged on their merits, rather than their identities? You appear to be trying to exempt yourself from the outing that you endorse. Am I wrong? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Materially, you're accurate (minus the spin), except in one important respect - I'm not defending inclusion, I'm attacking prohibition. The difference is important. Privatemusings 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're more than defending inclusion, you're rubbing inclusion in the face of people editing this page. Can you explain why you believe that you should be able to edit without harassment but don't think that other editors should have the same privilege? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Will, to say 'rubbing inclusion in the face' is unwarranted and aggressive, and I don't believe your approach in asking loaded questions will be helpful for this debate. I believe my posts above to be relatively clear. Privatemusings 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You aren't simply saying we shouldn't prohibit linking to ASM, you're linking to it. That's inclusion. Why you felt it necessary to include a link to a site that has engaged in gross harassment and outing of a Wikipedia editor still isn't clear to me. Nor is it clear to me why you are hiding your identity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Occam's Razor is a powerful tool. I believe the link to be relevant to the discussion. I believe questions of identity are best left alone (and I can't resist making the point that surely it is these questions that so upset proponents of link removal?). Privatemusings 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This matter of harassment is intimately connected with identity. Many of the sites engaging in harassment seek to "out" the RL identities of WP editors. Can you say whether you are for or against the outing of WP editors? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorically against. Except for extremely strong and important reasons (CoI perhaps) outing is horribly aggressive and inappropriate. Privatemusings 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so why is linking to an outing website OK? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't support Stormfront, but support linking to its homepage. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Privatemusings 04:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So you say you oppose outing editors, but you support linking to outing sites because doing so provides "sunlight"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Broadly yes. I hope you don't support Stormfront either, but I hope you support linking to it. Do you? Privatemusings 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So you support the outing of editors becuase doing provides "sunlight", but you have a doubly-secret username because you don't want to be outed and have any sunlight on your own edits. It's hard to understand your position. Unless StormFront is engaged in harassing editors I don't see the relevance here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually my username is seven levels deep (insert manic evil mwaa ha ha ha) and nobody will ever know that I'm a dog. Seriously though - you can review all of my edits remotely related to this arena quickly and easily in the usual way. Stormfront (and I'm really wishing this wasn't such a suited example, it's horrible to keep referencing) is a nasty piece of work, harassing and attacking black people, Jews, oh and probably Librarians etc. etc. - so yes, I'm pretty certain that our editors encompass the demographics they attack. But it's still a good thing that we link to them. I'm beginning to feel that our discussion here is bloating somewhat, but would like to ask you to consider if you can see anything a little odd in the perspective you seem to be clinging to where you would defend links to hateful organisations, but remove links to an unreliable, 'tiny blog'? Privatemusings 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you want sunlight shone on your editing career here? Is sunlight only appropriate for other editors? Do other editors require "disinfectant" while you are exempt a similar disinfection?

As for Stormfront, I don't see any particular need to link to it It isn't a reliable source. The purpose of our article on the topic is to describe the site, not provide a link to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your position, whilst consistent (and perhaps admirable) isn't Wiki policy either on sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Legitimate_uses_of_multiple_accounts, or external links "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." - Wikipedia:External_links. You may find support for changing these policies - i think it's out there - but that change would be required before your position represented en/wiki policy. Privatemusings 05:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings, the point isn't that you're abusively using a sockpuppet, which you probably are not. The problem is that it's really hypocritical to demand openness in excess of what policies require, while not subjecting yourself to the same openness you expect other people to submit to. -Amarkov moo! 06:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PM: "I wish to retain my enjoyment in editing articles, so aim to protect myself from any anger or hot feeling, and I wish any points to stand or fall on their merits." Yet you feel comfortable linking to a site full of anger and hot feelings, that seeks to harass other editors. If you want to disinfect your fellow editors by exposing them to sunlight then don't do so while remaining in the shade. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel my points may carry more weight if I make my other account known? It's not pleasant to be marked as hypocritical, and I'm feeling aggression towards me, which is also unpleasant. I shall disengage, but still firmly endorse all (my) previous posts. Privatemusings 06:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your points would carry more weight if you applied them to yourself. I believe you have written a wonderful summary of how every Wikipedia editor should be treated, but at the same time you are proposing policies which would have the opposite effect. You are saying, "we mustn't do anything to prevent the harassment of editors, but I'm not willing to take the slightest chance of being harassed myself." Is it hypocritical to link to a site that outs editors while hiding behind a sock puppet? I believe it is, but only you can know your true motives. If you were simply expressing a viewpoint and letting it end there it wouldn't be an issue. But since you are among the foremost editors seeking to prevent a useful policy to address the harassment from being drafted or adopted your own response to potential harassment is germane. The purpose of limiting links to sites engaged in harassment is to allow every editor, not just yourself, to retain their enjoyment of editing. Please don't make harassment an accepted norm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to reduce this discussion to you calling me a hypocrite - I've just read this post on the mailing list, where William Pietri puts it better than I (responding to Fred Bauder, but I feel the reply appropriate to Will, and others, also;

"Fred, your response here is exactly the reason I think we shouldn't have

a BADSITES policy, even the unwritten one we seem to have ended up with.

John has raised a legitimate question, one also unanswered in my mind. You respond by impugning his character and/or his judgement -- in my view, without cause or benefit. However reasonable it is to try to suppress potentially harmful information on a small scale, your good intentions have led you into a reductio ad absurdum position where you are trying to suppress it on ever-larger scales.

Neither you nor Wikipedia has the power necessary to achieve your goal in this case. Any idiot with Google can find the information you are hoping to stamp out. Research and long experience prove that trying to suppress information both makes it more appealing and more persuasive, so your efforts aren't just in vain, they are counterproductive. The only reason I learned about it was all this drama, and I imagine that goes for a lot of people -- possibly including the Slate author.

Now Slashdot, a major tech news site, and Slate, a major general audience web publication owned by the Washington Post, have both mentioned this. It's time for all concerned to accept that the cat is not just out of the bag, but that the bag is in tatters and the cat has had a liter of healthy kittens that are now roving the alleys.

I think the real shame here is that this particular case has poisoned the well for your efforts to protect people, possibly for a long time.

No serious Wikipedia participant is interested in exposing anonymous editors for thrills, or supporting the barking loons that latch on to Wikipedia as the source of all their troubles. By trying ever harder to keep anybody anywhere from talking about SV, you and others have convinced a lot of people that no information-suppression policy could ever work. By overreaching so dramatically, I believe you have reduced

your ability to protect other anonymous editors. And that's a shame."

Privatemusings, I'm not very impressed with this idea that you have to use a separate account to speak your mind on this issue. I've never been shy about opposing a blanket linking prohibition, and I don't find my ability to "edit in peace" compromised in the least. I even carried the URL of one of the "outing sites" on my userpage for a few months because I was trying to prevent an Internet war that others seemed intent on kindling. I've never had any trouble enjoying Wikipedia in a relaxing manner as a consequence of this.

The very idea that such secrecy is necessary is subversive of consensus and mutual understanding. If you believe in sunlight, I think you would do well to lead by example. That's coming from someone who already agrees with you, and who sometimes knows a thing or two about what makes people likely or unlikely to see your point. You may be sabotaging your own argument. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I respect your decision to maintain one account, and hope for your respect in my decision to use two. Some thoughts for what they're worth;

I believe this 'badsites' debate to be a sign of growing pains in wikipedia's adolescence. In my opinion, another serious issue yet to raise its head is our culture of pseudo anonymity. On the surface, our culture allows us to create avatars which interact with each other solely on the substance of those interactions, but in practice we see again and again real emotional, and human attachments being made to those avatars.

I understand and respect your point that my use of a sock may hinder others' perception of the (occasionally valid?) points that i raise. I hope you may consider that I believe it to be quite odd (the clinical explanation I would use would be that it's a form of psychosis to be honest) for the 'GTBacchus' avatar to be 'not very impressed' in not knowing the 'correct' avatar's identity behind 'Privatemusings'.

Except of course it is not really odd at all within the wiki culture as is. So it is my opinion that some forms of psychoses are entrenched in our pseudonymous culture at the moment - I already hear rumblings about the long term implications of this, and believe we're going to see some interesting fall out as these issues continue.

I can say to you that all of my posts have been in good faith, that I feel real world unpleasantness from, for example, being called a hipocrite, and therefore stand by the decision I've made.

Let me know if you'd like me to email you my other account details, or real life identity, but consider the implications if you'd like to know one but not the other. Privatemusings 05:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can tell from our interactions that you're contributing in good faith, and genuinely upset at being accused of hypocrisy. I don't think I need you to email me anything, although I would state for the record that it would be very easy for anyone to figure out my "real-life" identity. I've considered stating my real name on my user page, and I may do that some time.

My only issue with your using two accounts is that you might be making it harder for some other editors to work with you in good faith, whether that be due to psychosis or any other factor. If you think that using your usual account in this discussion would bring you trouble in other areas of Wikipedia, I can only point to myself as a counter-example of that prediction. I think the implication that one cannot use one's regular 'avatar' to discuss this subject is, all on its own, a problem. It brings an air of paranoia to the table, that we're better off without, in my opinion.

I certainly respect your right to disagree with me, whether for stated or unstated reasons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has made the post PM has will never pass a RFA, will never be elected to Arbcom, and if already on Arbcom, will be asked to be recused. If becoming an admin, becoming and arbiter, or staying an arbiter are goals PM has, he should preserve his anonymity. Regrettably, speaking unpopular wisdom and achieving elected office are things that just don't seem to go together very well. A bug which seemed endemic to republics. --Alecmconroy 07:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. If I weren't already an admin and hoped to become one, I might speak less freely about this topic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tiny blog

That Wordbomb guy may be a scoundrel, but he's got a very good point... it is indeed quite unbecoming of a top-10 site to be issuing ArbCom edicts cracking down on a tiny blog. *Dan T.* 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that size matters in reliability, a "tiny blog" is not going to rate high. We shouldn't be using any tiny blogs as sources, especially those that engage in the active harassment of Wikipedia editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan isn't saying that a tiny blog is a good source, his point is that "it is indeed quite unbecoming of a top-10 site to be issuing ArbCom edicts cracking down on a tiny blog". Privatemusings 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone proposing using it as a source? All the discussion as far as I know has been around using the link as a supplemental related site or as a subject for discussion, as the New York Times did when it published an article on the controversy around it. *Dan T.* 00:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is is being used as a reference by Privatemusings on this very page, as a proposed guide for our decision-making. As for tiny blogs, we crack down on all sorts of tiny websites that are spam or unreliable sources. I delete a few every day. I see absolutely nothing unbecoming in removing links to "petty and vindictive" sites that don't have reliable information for our encyclopedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And nobody else sees something unbecoming in not linking to useless slites. These strawman arguments that we support linking to things that otherwise would be removed because they're attack sites got old... oh, about six months ago. -Amarkov moo! 00:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, I lost you in all of those negatives. Is there another way of saying that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Armakov's point is that the claim is not that we should link to "useless" sites. That's the issue. These sites do have uses and meet WP:EL under certain circumstances. The question is whether under those circumstances. No one is saying that we should link willynilly to useless sites. JoshuaZ 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

People who oppose a ban on linking to attack sites do not necessarily support linking to such sites. Arguments that assume we want to regularly link to such sites are rather pointless. -Amarkov moo! 05:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so. One of the main opponents of a ban has himself linked to one of the more notorious sites. See the beginning of this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And I don't condone that in any way. But it isn't an argument for a blanket ban. -Amarkov moo! 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a refutation of the assertion that "People who oppose a ban on linking to attack sites do not necessarily support linking to such sites." Yes, some do support linking to them and actually do link to them. I'm not proposing a blanket ban. I'm proposing a change in the exceptions to the general ban on using self-published sources. The self-published sites of individuals who are in a conflcit with serious conlfict with Wikipedia should not be regarded as reliable sources for articles, and should not be included in external links either. My proposal does not address talk pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And I propose that NPOV entails that the status of a site or its creator as being in conflict, serious or otherwise, with Wikipedia should not affect the linkability of their site one way or the other (unless the conflict is itself a notable topic, in which case the link becomes more essential). And, if your proposal does not apply to talk pages, bringing up a link somebody made above on this talk page is a red herring. *Dan T.* 14:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in NPOV that prevents us from evaluating the reliability of sources or from excluding those that are deemed unreliable. On the contrary, NPOV says we should only include those viewpoints which are significant, not those solely sourceable to fringe, self-published sites. If folks are worried about red herrings then they should stop referring to "BADSITES". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting issue.....

The interested editor who has followed the link to the possibly banned site above will have read about User:Fjse44 being a sockpuppet of User:Wordbomb who should therefore be perma-banned immediately.

The problem is that the only evidence is there on that page many would have us not link to or reference ever.

What then should we do about User:Fjse44? - I've left a note to similar effect on his talk page. Privatemusings 04:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to post links in order to handle sock puppets. I think Wikipedia would be better off if folks didn't use sock puppets. 04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny, all this talk about that site not being a reliable source, but wikipedia immediately bans any editor he claims is his sockpuppet. Anyway, as stated above, you don't have to link to the site, you can simply quote it. For example:

"It’s a portion of an exchange between the uncommonly gutsy User:G-Dett (whom I’m reticent to praise for fear of what might befall her) and User:Ryulong, shortly after the latter banned User:Onomato as a WordBomb sockpuppet, based on nothing more than his having made some minor changes to the Wikipedia article on Patrick Byrne.

G-Dett : “Would it be fair to say that Wikipedia’s current working definition of a WordBomb sockpuppet is anyone whose edits focus (either wholly or in part) on naked-short-selling -related articles, and who opposes User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris?”

Ryūlóng: “They would be common traits as far as I know.”

G-Dett : “Of course they’re common traits; my question was whether they’re enough for a positive ID.”

Ryūlóng: “I would say so.”

Thoughtcrime. You may not like it, but at least it’s out in the open now."

Tah dah. Problem solved. -- 67.98.206.2 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

AGF, NPA, and BADSITES

I notice that it's gotten quite common to speculate about the motives of people who oppose BADSITES. It seems like people genuinely are confused about why the ANTI-BADSITES crowd are so motivated, and this has led to rampant speculation that the objections to BADSITES stem form personal character flaws, a lack of compassion, or support for harassment. I've written a little manifesto in response, User:Alecmconroy/AGF and BADSITES. --Alecmconroy 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you want to link to harassment then? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Diff, please. LessHeard vanU 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"want to" not "have done", a question not an acusation. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't apply to Alecmconroy, but the sock puppet Privatemusings has twice linked to harassment sites.[13][14] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, presumably that's to say that the cheeky monkey Will believes the material (you can follow Will's 2nd link to see it ironically - I think he's made a little mistake on the first) is inappropriate. I found it, and believe it to be, germane. Privatemusings 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Germane is one of Michael Jackson's brothers, isn't he? Now, only Will can answer for sure, but maybe he now considers the wikien-l mailing list to be an Attack Site? *Dan T.* 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BADLISTS ;-) daveh4h 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of openness, just to note that I've posted my discussion with Will above at Alec's talk page with some analysis of what I consider to be ad hominem arguments, as pertinent to this issue. Privatemusings 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of harassment of editors is about ad hominem attacks. Some users wish to allow links to ad hominem attacks, yet they complain when their hypocrisy over the matter is questioned. Let's try to avoid all ad hominem attacks by avoiding linking to external harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhhh. I see-- the only real problem is that PM is a hypocrite! PM, WP:WHYDOYOUHATEWP? --Alecmconroy 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is to say-- attacking someone for hypocrisy and condemning ad hominem attacks in the same paragraph isn't particularly convincing. --Alecmconroy 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, I'm pointing out that the same people who favor harassment are complaining when their hypocrisy is revealed. If you think that ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia editors is harmful to the project then I encourage you to support policies that would prevent them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. Belief that something is harmful does not require acceptance of anything which prevents it. Unceasing government monitoring would prevent crime, after all. -Amarkov moo! 23:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's worse than that. Unceasing government monitoring would not prevent crime, it would make it more powerful than ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And summarizing PM as someone who "favors harassment" is exactly the kind of pathetic attempt at distraction that my little essay was hoping to stop. --Alecmconroy 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because if we put our heads in the sand like ostriches, or cover up our eyes, ears, and mouth like the "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" monkeys, then attacks will cease to exist. *Dan T.* 21:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That only makes sense if any link to external harassment is an ad hominem attack, a case which you have not made. We could ban all external links as well, but that would be stupid, because all external links are not harassment. -Amarkov moo! 21:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we have the anti-anti BADSITES misrepresentation in a nutshell;

The issue of harassment of editors is about ad hominem attacks. Some users wish to allow links to ad hominem attacks, yet they complain when their hypocrisy over the matter is questioned. Let's try to avoid all ad hominem attacks by avoiding linking to external harassment...

where in fact the AAB faction have no wish to link to the harassment, but to the site containing such attacks where it serves the purposes of Wikipedia - which would be disallowed under BADSITES. LessHeard vanU 23:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"BADSITES" isn't being proposed. We do know that some editors here wish to link to self-published websites that negage in harassment, because they have done so and have argued for their continued ability to do so. "Serving" Wikipedia has already been discussed and found to vague to be a useful standard. We shouldn't use sources that aren't reliable. Self-published sources are inherently unreliable and are only used in exceptional cases. All I'm propsoing here is to reduce the number of exceptions that allow them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You want a blanket ban on linking to attack sites, and you want removals based on this to be immune from 3RR. Correct me if either of those statements are wrong, but if they aren't, then it is being proposed. -Amarkov moo! 23:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Both statements are wrong. I am proposing that we treat self-published websites that actively engage in harassment of Wikipedia editors as being generally unreliable as sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. Most people agree with that. Have you seen someone say that self-published sites that actively harass Wikipedia editors are generally reliable sources? Remember, there need not be a ban on any links to them just because they are unreliable. -Amarkov moo! 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, noting that harassers are generally unreliable is something everyone can agree on. On the other hand, banning all links to sites that harass, whether justified by NPA, RS, EL, or any other legal theory, would just be BADSITES by another name. And what's in a name? that which we call BADSITES, by any other name, would still lack consensus. --Alecmconroy 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, since "everyone can agree on it" I will add it to the policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha-- not quite so fast, eh? I don't agree to it being on NPA. NPA doesn't apply to articles. But it's fine in Linking to External Harassment, where I believe we already say that. It also would be most bad form to edit the protected policy, and of course, you should take more than my word for it being something "everyone can agree to". --Alecmconroy 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh- I see-- you did add it to Linking to External Harassment instead of here. :) most good. --Alecmconroy 00:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that we're unprotected

Let's make sure that we discuss changes here. It would obviously be pretty silly to immediately return to an edit war! I'd strongly recommend that we all stick to 1RR to help this along. Privatemusings 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted a whole section without mentioning it here. I've restored the material. The RfC above did not have a definitive outcoime. If we want to draw a conclusion from it we should ask a neutral editor or admin "close" it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea to try and find a neutral editor / admin. My reading is the same as yours in that there was no definitive outcome, which I would say indicates no consensus for the section, and hence justifies its removal. A neutral editor may or may nor concur. Privatemusings 05:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, in your reversion, you removed the note drawing editor's attention to the problematic section, and encouraging their participation here with the aim of avoiding further edit warring - was this intentional? Privatemusings 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for the note embedded in a policy as it was...everyone who seems to care about how this policy is worded has this policy watchlisted anyway.--MONGO 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed?

Is the current text beneath the tag still disputed? Privatemusings 05:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The text which will recently added is highly disputed. It has failed to achieve consensus in the current RFC, in past, or in equivalent forums (e.g. BADSITES, Arbcom). A "neutral editor" if one could even be found on this issue, is not an absolute requirement-- an editor with sincerity and elementary arithmetic should suffice. 11-8 against is not a consensus any way you swing it. Even the other way round, 8-11 in favor would not be a consensus. You really don't need arithmetic-- you just need to read over the comment and note that "there seems to be quite a lot of dissent-- about as much dissent as there is support.

I believe the recently added test does not have consensus. I'll wait a moment of time, just to ensure there wasn't some secret mass RFC that took place without my knowledge, afterwhich I will remove it. What evidence is there that the community has come to consensus supporting a 3RR exemption for linking to sites containing harassment? --Alecmconroy 10:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the following text

"It is disputed whether the removal of such links is subject to the three-revert rule. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for banning."

should be removed, because the information is better explained by the footnotes. Otherwise, I think the disputed tag can be removed. Addhoc 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say change it back to the way is was. 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

I don't see anything wrong with that text so I restored it.--MONGO 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a fine opinion, but it's not obvious that a consensus supports your opinion at the time. This is a policy page-- we shouldn't add anything back to it until it's clearly and demonstratively supported by a consensus--Alecmconroy 16:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for your revert either, so I restored the original version. I don't see anything wrong with the version I restored to...what is the problem with it?--MONGO 16:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine.. It's true I did introduce some new language-- i had hoped it would be without objection, but obviously it was. I've removed the entire EL section, so we can work on the TALK page to propose one that will have consensus. Surely everyone can agree that NPA itself has consensus and no one who seriously recommends trashing the whole policy?

"I don't see anything wrong with the version I restored to...what is the problem with it" I'm sorry, I just can't seriously assume this is a good faith question. You know very well what the numerous objections have been. If, however, I'm wrong and you're truly unaware of the issues, you can start by reading the badsites arbitrations, dan's essay, my essay, for a discussion of why this section is objected to. --Alecmconroy 16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You know very well what the objections to your versions have been as well...so no consensus means we leave policy as it is.--MONGO 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this disputed?

The current text is:

"Posting external links for the purposes of attacking, calling for the harassment of, or flagrantly violating the privacy of a Wikipedia editor is not permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may be blocked. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for banning."

Is there anyone who disputes this-- i.e. is there anyone who feel that "Posting external links for the purposes of attacking, calling for the harassment of, or flagrantly violating the privacy of a Wikipedia editor is permitted, and those who do so deliberately or repeatedly may not be blocked?

(I recognize, of course, there are those who have a "semi" dispute because the want the section to say more than it does-- but I _think_ they don't dispute these particular sentences, so much as they wish they were more of them).

If these sentences ARE disputed, I'm comfortable with deleting them too and having NPA just be silent on El.

Process wise, if I had my rathers, I'd have us just delete the whole EL section that was never vetted, make it so that NPA is silent on EL, then, if necessary, make a proposal, get consensus for a new addition to NPA that discusses EL, and only one that got consensus, add it into the policy. But, if this wording is truly undisputed, I guess there'd be no harm in just letting it stand. --Alecmconroy 15:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is disputed. Your wording is not controversial however. JoshuaZ 15:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with JoshuaZ, irrespective of the dispute your wording seems reasonable. Addhoc 15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) What's the difference? Controversial is disputed by a lot of people? And do you think that wording should stay? or should we chop it and start over with the correct propose-build_consensus-edit process that never took place in NPA#EL case? --Alecmconroy 15:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That version was controversial too

Regrettably, MONGO found that version controversial as well, so I've deleted my version and "restored" it to a version prior to the creation of the EL section. (whose author, incidentaly, admits was a mistake that he regrets). Hopefully we can all agree THIS version has consensus, and we can start working up from there. --Alecmconroy 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored it since I have seen no consensus to remove an entire section on external links...arbcom has demanded that the community decide policy, as they should have. The community here seems to be those that are doing all they can to ensure others aren't attacked by links to offsite attacks and those that want to be able to link to everything...mediation doesn't seem to be an answer to this ongoing disagreement, so what do you suggest?--MONGO 16:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

When has there ever been consensus to add that section in the first place? As for ArbCom, they don't have the power to "demand" that the community do anything, but fortunately they attempted no such thing; they merely politely requested that the community come up with a policy that achieves consensus on the issue. *Dan T.* 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure..demanded was not really what I meant to type..but as expected, they do not make policies...we do. Bear in mind that the support for the version I restored has been expressed numerous times...no consensus was achieved to remove it, certainly not in it's entireity.--MONGO 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment to MONGO: I don't think there are many people in this discussion who "want to be able to link to everything". If we don't paint the picture in polar black and white, we'll be closer to reality. Does that seem reasonable, that we should refrain from characterizing as negatively as possible the opinions of those who disagree with us? If we're going to pretend there is no reasonable grounds for disagreement, then of course mediation won't work. Can we please stop edit warring and talk about what needs to be done?

Please note that I am NOT defending linking to outing sites. I'm suggesting that edit-warring is extremely unproductive and a bad, bad idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with MONGO's edit. - Crockspot 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

it's fine to personally agree-- but you can't sanely argue it isn't highly controversial. We've had a whole BADSITES proposal, an arbcom case, and an RFC, on whether or not a policy that forbids ALL linking to harassment has consensus. Saying "Yep-- it's got consensus, alright" simply doesn't pass the giggle test. --Alecmconroy 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't, by nature, try to revert any section of the policy into existence. I'm just not going to let MONGO edit-war his point of view into being policy either. I think a LOT of very reasonable people agree with you. Unfortunately, a lot of reasonable people also disagree with you. Until we can find a policy that has consensus, we should have NO policy-- not the policy of whoever willing to edit war the hardest. --Alecmconroy 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be violating WP:POINT as well as WP:3RR. Not letting MONGO get his way is not a valid rationale for editing core policies. - Crockspot 17:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you look at my posts, you'll clearly see that my interest here is in the policy, not in MONGO. --Alecmconroy 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing the entire section on external linking is definitely NOT in consensus.--MONGO 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who objected to the limited EL section, not me. If we can't agree on a version that has consensus, what can we do but remove the part that lacks consensus and talk about it.  ? --Alecmconroy 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've protected again. I didn't check which version I had protected (and it appears to be the version I disagree with). That said, Alec is completely correct here. We shouldn't have non-consensus text on a policy page. When in doubt, it shouldn't be there until there is some consensus version. JoshuaZ 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to remove it? Did you just protect this page you also edited earlier...perhaps that is okay since you admit it is on a version you disagree with, but be careful with that issue.--MONGO 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, I don't think you really get how policies work. to be ON a policy page, something needs to have consensus. If it does not have consensus, it is not policy, does not belong on the policy page, and it will be removed on sight. It's like asking "Where is the consensus to remove that vandalism?"

If you admit your version does not have consensus (which you must, unless you are blind, insane, or a troll) , you YOURSELF should delete it-- NEVER EVER add it .

The same goes for MY versions. I proposed a new EL version that I thought would be undisputed. You objected to it, so I deleted it myself from the policy page until we've had time to talk about it. --Alecmconroy 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To narrow down which potential "problems" I might be further alluded to as having, I don't believe I am blind, insane or a troll(now removed I see). I don't see where I stated the version currently standing (that I restored) was one I disputed.--MONGO 17:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe you're blind, insane, or a troll either. I think you recognize that your version lacks consensus, but you still feel justified in edit-warring your version into the policy because you feel it "is right" and your opinions should trump the requirement that policies must have consensus. --Alecmconroy 17:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you don't think I am blind, insane or a troll. I also deeply appreciate your refactoring of those comments as well. I'm sure we can come to some kind of resolution that linking to off site harassment is not to be tolerated and that doing so knowing and repeatedly can and should be a blockable offense...not sure why it even needs to be in the policy, but apparently it does...and reverting such linking is exempt from 3RR of course...this should be obvious.--MONGO 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"I also deeply appreciate your refactoring of those comments as well. " I don't think I actually refactored anything, but I welcome your appreciation still. I too am sure that we will eventually reach some consensus that linking to off-site harassment for the PURPOSE of harassment is wrong. And that linking to it for the purposes of creating an encyclopedia is good.

"not sure why [BADSITES] even needs to be in the policy [...] this is obvious"

So-- when generating consensus fails to make your proposal policy, and when Arbcom fails to make your proposal policy, you'll resort to edit warring to try to make your proposal policy. And if that also fails-- it was so obvious it never even needed to be in the policy anyway?? Well, that's good. Rip it out of there, then read go WP:CONSENSUS before trying to decide any more disputes by fiat. --Alecmconroy 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were edit warring too...I guess edit warring applies (as far you are concerned) only to those who revert your changes? Consensus of whom? I didn't see any consensus to remove the entire section, or even make any changes to it. I am hoping that you will do all you can to not allude to my hypothesized insanity, blindness or that I am troll...and I really do appreciate you quickly adjusting those comments about my character and characteristics. Let me know when linking to harassment helps us write and reference a better encyclopedia...I have yet to see an argument that makes that a valid point. Thank you.--MONGO 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, this in unhelpful. Those opposing the version of policy that you support are NOT arguing that we should link to harassment. Until you acknowledge this, we will not have peace. I do not support, nor have I ever supported, linking to harassment. Alec is not supporting linking to harassment. If you characterize the debate in those terms, we go round in circles forever. If you recognize that the debate is not about whether to protect our editors, but about how to protect our editors, then we can make progress.

Now, regarding the section on this policy page, would you say that your preferred version has consensus support? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there was a collective edit war. However, that doesn't change the fact that the community does not at this time have a consensus for any of this material. The default for policy is if there is a lack of consensus then to remove it. Remember, policy primarily reflects what the community actually does and wants to do. It is not a dictate from on-high. `JoshuaZ 18:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Ahh-- I see what you mean MONGO about the refactoring. In truth, I didn't readjust anything-- I was saying: If someone looks over this page, the arbcom page, the BADSITES page, the mailing list, and everywhere else, and they truly come to the conclusion that the BADSITES version you keep inserting has consensus, they are either blind, insane, or trolling. At this point, nobody can say "BADSITES has the community's consensus, alright" without being laughed out of the room by howls of laughter.

I never called you any of those things because I don't believe you are truly crazy enough to think the text you added has consensus. You know very well the text you added doesn't have consensus. We all know it doesn't. Somehow, you think it's okay, because you're Mongo, or because you're right, or because you think I'm part of an MI-5 agent sent here by ED to attack you, or god knows what reason you've concocted in your own head for knowingly inserting text into a policy that doesn't have consensus.

For my part, I've _tried_ to cut out any text that I feel doesn't have consensus-- no matter who wrote and and no matter whether I agree with it or not. I cut out the text you added because we all know it doesn't have have consensus. When you claimed the text I had added didn't have consensus, I was happy to cut that out also. If the entire NPA page were to lose consensus, I'd vote to remove the whole dang page until it re-established consensus. So should you. --Alecmconroy 18:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) MONGO, back when I initially proposed forking some version of BADSITES over to NPA[15], you were the only one who expressed any sort of reservation that doing so might be a bad idea:[16]. Now that this has obviously been proven true, you are defending a position that, to me, has no clear basis for continued support here on this page. The battle here is lost, but the ideas may stand a better chance to be rationally discussed on a proposal page devoted to working out the implications of the current ArbCom case. To me, the best option for all involved is to redirect the energies going into this futile edit war into a more productive debate on Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, which is where this on-going drama should play out. No consensus can be arrived at here, but may develop on a page devoted to that purpose.—AL ^FOCUS! 18:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made adjustments ot my opinions on the matter, but I do thank you for reminding me of a comment I made almost 6 months ago.--MONGO 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The last consensus version

Once upon a time, NPA was not a disputed policy, didn't have edit wars, and wasn't protected. This was the version.

This version was NPA was uncontested and appeared to have total consensus. With regard to the BADSITES issue, NPA had remained in the same state (silent) for its three year history.

The next edit added BADSITES into the page. No consensus for this change existed. The editor who made the change describes the change as a huge mistake, made back when he was a young wikipedian.

The disputed text didn't have consensus then, and it hasn't consensus since, and it doesn't have consensus now. (If, god forbid, anyone reading this is sufficently out of touch to think BADSITES does have consensus, see WP:BADSITES,Arbcom case talk, Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks, the mailing list, and your local mental health practitioner).

I would hope we could agree on this text, which says posting links for the purposes of harassment is unacceptable. Since it neither endorses nor forbids linking to BADSITES, but remains totally silent on the BADSITES issue, I'd hoped it would be would be something we could all agree on, until we have some large consensus on the BADSITES issue.

But if there's something disputed about that wording, we could go back to the version we knew had consensus before this whole mess started, and work up from there. --Alecmconroy 19:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, to be completely fair, we could leave the BADSITES wording in and demote NPA back to a proposed policy. I think that would be a loss to the community, but it's an option. Leaving highly disputed text in the policy simply is not an option-- the only question is how many days and how many blocks is it gonna take to get people to stop reinserting text that lacks consensus. --Alecmconroy 19:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The "external links" section is not the same thing as WP:BADSITES, and I wish people would stop confusing the issue by referring to WP:NPA#External links as BADSITES. They are not the same thing, and I strongly support an external links section in this policy. - Crockspot 19:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like duck-- it's basically a duck. You can insist people call it an Oxyura australis if you want, but I don't think it's gonna catch on. <grin> --Alecmconroy 19:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• The BADSITES policy failed as a standalone policy. That does not mean elements of that policy cannot be instituted into existing policy. Carried to the logical extreme, since BADSITES contained the words "the", "and", and "external links", then those words cannot be used in other policies. Are you advocating for the posting of external links to sites that personally attack wikipedians? - Crockspot 19:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you posting strawman arguments? NPA wasn't even a factor in this before I more or less randomly forked the initial text from BADSITES. The initial BADSITES proposal didn't start out as a plan to ammend NPA. Another proposal elsewhere, working from a more comprehensive ArbCom case, is handling the issue. Neither BADSITES nor its progeny NPA#Extenal Links have gained consensus. The logistical if not logical thing to do would be to redirect the debate as to how to work these issues out over to Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, than continue to prop up a policy proposal that has already essentially failed twice.—AL ^FOCUS! 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA#EL is functionally equivalent to BADSITES, so its name is earned. NPA#EL doesn't lack consensus because of name-callers-- it lacks consensus for the same reason BADSITES proper lacked consensus-- many people are of the opinion that BADSITES/NPA#EL is incompatible with NPOV, and NPOV is non-negotiable. --Alecmconroy 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you still beating your wife? Are you now, or have you ever been, a communist an advocate of linking to sites that personally attack Wikipedians? *Dan T.* 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

dang! Dan beat me to it! Two points for Dan, and one step closer to a win in "do anti-BADSITES advocates support harassment" BINGO game for his find of: Alec, do you advocate the harassment of Wikipedians? Oh, Alec, Why do you hate wikipedia ? <grin>--Alecmconroy 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• When you guys are finished jerking each other off and are ready for some productive discussion, let me know. Otherwise you're wasting my time with your own anti-MONGO agenda, and your conflict of interest related to certain "bad sites". - Crockspot 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF. Dude, you owe me and whoever else you were referring one MAJOR apology. Mongo has nothing to do with that, I am NOT affiliated with ANY of the sites in question, and I DEMAND you produce evidence that I am affiliated, or else retract your frickin psychotic personal attack on me (and whomever else you're talking about. Thank you for DEFINING hypocricy. --Alecmconroy 21:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, please let's not make comments like that. Discourtesy is not helpful in this situation. If you wish to shift the topic of the discussion, please do so in a manner that is dignified, and respectful of everyone involved. Thank you for understanding. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I felt that my time was being wasted by two editors who were more interested in cracking wise and high-fiving each other. My patience does have a limit. - Dean Wormer 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC) - Crockspot 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and where your patience ends, WP:NPA begins. Frankly, nobody's making you read any particular post, and you are solely in charge of how you spend your time. If you feel your time is wasted, then direct it elsewhere. Your lack of patience does nothing to excuse uncivil behavior. If you assault someone and go to court, what will the jury think of "they were wise-cracking and high-fiving each other, and I was tired of it"? You'll be guilty; that's what they'll think. If you're unable to engage as a mature, rational adult, then disengage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I did disengage. Perhaps I should have disengaged BEFORE I opined, but there are no do-overs. But it's a bit of a stretch to compare it to a physical battery. - Crockspot 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There aren't do-overs, but there are apologies. If you're willing to be violent with words, then why is that so different from being violent with fists? Reckless aggression is reckless aggression is not acceptable. When you've just been rude to someone, and you get called out on it, saying "I did disengage... after I was a jerk" is not very impressive. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You have me at a loss. Which words were violent? - Crockspot 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You find that to be the point? Let's take this to a different talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, not to reignite this, but let's be clear, Crockspot. If you just got upset and spoke a little to quickly-- that's fine. Edit gets hot, people get mixed up about who they're talking to, etc. I think you've learned you lesson. You know now I am not, nor have I ever been, associated with any of the alleged BADSITES. If you think you have any evidence that proves I'm associated with one of those "badsites" groups, please email it to me or post it to my talk, so I can help you see where you're wrong in your thinking. In either case, let me be clear: don't you DARE ever accuse me of anything like that ever again.

In turn, I'll try to let bygones be bygones, and per AGF, I'm going to assume you had me confused with someone else, against whom those accusations might have been true. I know there's lots of names floating around, it's easy to get confused about who is who. Now that I've corrected you, I consider the situation resolved, and I won't hold it against you in the future. Friends. --Alecmconroy 02:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's proposal from the arbitration case

I've done a little work on the compromise proposal that I had suggested during the recent "Attack sites" arbitration case. I had thought about WP:BOLDly inserting it into the policy and seeing if it stuck, but I see that the project page is protected, so I'll copy it here instead. The discussion of linking to problematic sites would be replaced with something like the following:

(A) Wikipedia pages must not be linked to webpages that harass Wikipedia editors. Deliberate addition of such links (after warning, where appropriate) is grounds for blocking, and removal of such links is not subject to 3RR. This paragraph refers to webpages that:

(1) Reveal personal identifying information of a Wikipedia editor who chooses to edit anonymously and whose real-life identity is not generally known as a result of disclosure by the user himself or herself or dissemination through reliable sources;

(2) Contain defamatory or grossly offensive material about an editor; or

(3) Expressly or impliedly calls for any editor to be harassed in real life or otherwise.

(B) Links to pages of websites that routinely engage in the practices described in (A), but where the link is not to the specific webpage containing the offending material, are strongly discouraged. In general, a site that engages in these practices is unlikely to fall within the usual definition of reliable sources for article content in any event. Links to such sites should be used, if at all, only where including the link contributes substantially to an article or discussion, and where no other citation for the same information can be reasonably be substituted without loss of content or comprehension.

(C) Otherwise appropriate links to websites that do not generally engage in the practices described in (A) generally should not be removed because the website becomes engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor, except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand, such links should not be added for an illegitimate purpose, such as the harassment of any editor.

(D) This policy affects only webpages or websites that engage in "outing" or call for editors to be harassed. It has no application to sites that simply offer criticism of Wikipedia or its editors (whether or not our editors believe the criticism has merit), tease our editors without crossing the (admittedly subjective) line into harassment, or the like.

(E) In deciding what links should be included in Wikipedia, the effect of including such links on our editors is a legitimate factor to be considered in the exercise of editorial discretion, although except as described above it is not the only factor to be considered.

I acknowledge that this proposal might be wordy and overlong. I hope that it can help pin down some of the concepts to be addressed, whereupon the wordsmithing can follow. I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one think something this detailed should go into the "Linking to external harassment" page. This links section should only be a summary. Milto LOL pia 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good point, although the discussion should probably involve both pages (with what's here being a summary of what's there). I've already posted this (or something close to it) on the talk page over there a couple of weeks ago, but it's hard to keep track of where the discussion is taking place at any given moment. Newyorkbrad 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For that very reason I believe we should not attempt to summarize here, it will necessitate the splintering of effort. I support a referencing link alone on this policy, and that all efforts to find consensus gather around the new policy page. Privatemusings 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This rather closely matches with my view on the issue in question, so I strongly support adding it either here or to another appropriate policy page. JavaTenor 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest that wording for A:3 Change to 'Explicitly or implicitly' as impliedly isn't really a word. Otherwise, FULL support for NYB's proposal, which carefully constrains WP:NPA#EL and WP:BADSITES, distilling the one kernel we are all reasonably and rightfully concerned with; being the next User:H. ThuranX 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I largely agree with the substance of the proposal, and I think it would be a terrible idea to write it into policy. It's incredibly BEANSy, like a big bright billboard, informing anybody reading NPA that (a) there are specific websites out there that make it their business to harass and "out" Wikipedia editors, and (b) that contributing or linking to such a website is a great way to get our goat. If someone doesn't know about (a), why inform them about it, and if they haven't thought of (b), why suggest it to them? Writing such language into policy would be like taping a "troll me" sign to our collective back.

I'm certain that Newyorkbrad offered his suggestion in complete good faith, and as I said, I agree with most of the content. I just think it should be handled much more discreetly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment, but this set of proposals (worded slightly differently) has been floating around for more than a month now. Incidentally, it was offered as a sense of where I think consensus is, not necessary as the precise policy I would write from scratch. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's been floating around doesn't really address my point. Perhaps I'm bringing up a point that hasn't been talked about much, but that certainly doesn't automatically invalidate the point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note also that I agree with the substance of what you've written. I'm trying to talk about the manner in which it's written into policy. Just like WP:VAND doesn't say "don't replace George Bush's picture with that of a penis, nor with a picture of animals copulating, nor with a picture of a dismembered corpse, nor with... " You get the idea. We don't have to spell out in lurid detail exactly what we don't want people to link to. Doing so advertises the existence of such content and drives traffic to it. We can make it clear that we don't link to websites that are malicious in any way, absent truly compelling encyclopedic necessity. It's not just a matter of outing Wikipedia editors; it falls under a more general heading. We don't link to hate-sites, absent compelling reason. We don't link to pornography, or to snuff films, or to sites advocating and enabling illegal behavior, absent compelling reason. What makes our not linking to privacy-violations of Wikipedians any different? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)And how would that be done? a non-public policy cannot be cited. An uncitable policy is unenforcable. that's right back to where we were. Going through this would be a really bad experience, and protecting users from it should be the highest order of business in policy development. I've yet to read a really good reason why we should link to sites that out our editors, other than specious free speech bullshit. calling Fire in a crowded theater isn't free speech, nor is incitement to harrass, in fact, both are criminal acts. ThuranX 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thuran, you misunderstand my meaning. First of all, I have no interest in linking to outing sites, nor in protecting some kind of "right" to link to outing sites. I am interested in protecting our editors, and I am firmly convinced that a proposal spelling out too clearly the nature of the sites we're talking about will expose our editors to more harassment. Therefore, I agree that protecting users is of great importance. The disagreement is not whether to do it; it's how to best do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, any sufficiently large community, online or otherwise, will have these kind of sites. It's well known. Acknowledging that these kind of sites exists is not encouraging them, or editors to use them. The only people who would seriously be interested in maliciously harassing a specific editor would already be aware enough of the encyclopedia and internet in general to know that these kinds of sites exist, and how to find them. Simply acknowledging that "there exist sites which harass and insult some Wikipedians" is simply stating a truism which almost anyone with a rough familiarity with the community would know. --Haemo 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I'm not convinced that it's a priori knowledge that there are sites devoted to collecting names, photos and whereabouts of as many WP administrators as possible. Do other high profile sites also receive such... attention? I'm certainly unaware of it. We're talking about 2, maybe 3, websites, which as far as I know are largely invisible to people who haven't followed some part of this drama. I'm quite certain that people read our policies without already knowing that Wikipedia has specific Internet enemies. My friends who don't edit Wikipedia sure don't know about WR or Wikitruth. Why would they?

I'd rather not make certain that anybody who reads NPA comes away knowing that there are specific Wikipedia "outing" sites. A reasonably curious person, finding that out, might just go look for them. That's how I find out about sites sometimes; I read something in one place, and that inspires me to do a Google search, and I find what I find. If I weren't inspired by what I read, I wouldn't have done that Google search.

Moreover, why on Earth is it necessary to talk directly about sites that harass and "out" Wikipedians? Such sites fall under the general heading of malicious, useless sites that we don't need to link to without compelling encyclopedic reasons. Why do "outing" sites need a special clause of their own? Why should we throw energy at them like that, and thereby demonstrate that we're giving them power over us? Writing a special rule against these sites gives them a great victory - "congratulations, WR, you have the power to make us write special rules to deal with the annoyance you cause us". We can protect ourselves without shining spotlights on them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see how, because it hasn't worked yet, has it? Links continue to be posted, they aren't blacklisted, and for some reason, some editors think it's laudable to add them in in the name of 'free information'. I challenge all those in support of doing NOTHIGN to post all their information publicly on their user pages in perpetuity. If you aren't willing to do so, then you clearly value your privacy. ANd if you alue it, but not the privacy of others, then you're either completely selfish and amoral, or a raging hypocrite, or both, and need to reconsider your opinion. ThuranX 03:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware that many editors working to prevent blanket link bans are in exactly the position you challenge them to take. Privatemusings 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I don't support "doing NOTHING" (nor "doing nothing"), nor have I ever claimed to support that. Your ability to read my mind is unimpressive. Nonetheless, I've posted my real name to my user page. Hi. I'm Tony Jacobs. I live in Seattle, in the U district. Come and meet me at A Pizza Mart on University Way some night, and I'll buy you a drink.

Now, would you like to make any more uninformed assumptions about what I do or don't support? What you don't know is that I support protecting our editors privacy, but I support doing it effectively rather than ineffectively, which is what you seem to be proposing. Should I conclude that you support harassment, because you're supporting a foolish version of this policy? I think I won't jump to that conclusion.

By the way, if you want to know what I support, you should ask me, rather than assuming and showing yourself to be sadly mistaken. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lengthy, but I agree with the principles. If there is a more appropriate policy where this should go, with a summary and main article link here, it works for me. - Crockspot 00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think that's probably WP:PROBLEMLINKS. Privatemusings 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything that restricts links in article space is for many editors a non-starter. I wouldn't object to the above proposal as long as it hand something of the form "This policy does not alter links in article space that would otherwise meet WP:EL. However, if there are many links in an external link section and some form of parring down is necessary then this policy may be taken into consideration." The second sentence is to apply to articles like Evolution where we have a tremendous number of external links and essentially every possible link has at least two or three which could just as well be there instead. I'm not sure this second part is necessary. However, as long as article space is being effected this will not have me or many other editors behind it. JoshuaZ 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So... You're saying that outing of editors is just and deserved;that we shouldn't interfere with the harrassment and real world attacks on editors; that links to outing people should be considered as valid as any other, and that by stopping the links to such sites, we're the ones who should be thrown off the project. Your opinion is duly noted. ThuranX 02:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thuran... where are you coming from, man? He didn't say any of that, and I'm quite certain he doesn't believe it. Are you trying to drag this discussion into the mud? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's clearly his intent. He makes clear that any censorship of any linked site which meets any version of WP:EL would be tantamount to ruining the project. In so doing, he places the safety of his fellow editors below his version of free speech; a level of 'free speech' that even the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't percieve as reasonable. As such, he supports attack sites over editors, and that's the plain language of what he's saying. I know where he stands, and I know what kind of person he is now. I wonder if his opinion would change if he went through what other editors here have experienced, because I've yet t ofind an editor who has gone through an 'outing' process who still thinks that linking to harrassment sites in the name of free speech is a good idea. ThuranX 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you are done burning the strawman, I'm not very good around smoke. First, I have, and no not strongly object to restrictions on links in spaces other than mainspace(I think it's a bad idea, but it is something I'm willing to compromise on). Second, the comparison to the Supreme Court isn't at all useful and I don't even understand how you are comparing them, so explaining your analogy in more detail might be helpful (I'll ignore in any event your unstated premise that the Court has been too extreme in what constitutes protected speech). Third, a number of users and admins who have been harassed think that letting this effect user space is a bad idea. In fact, I'm one of them. I am on Hivemind, and I've had more unpleasant experiences that I'd rather not talk about. A number of users such as William Pietri(sp?) who have positions similar to mine have also been harassed. Phil Sandifer has gotten a hell of a lot of crap (you can email him if you want the details) and he has what I think might constitute a complicated view of this issue. Fourth, as I've explained before I don't see anything beyond a very marginal benefit to not linking directly to these links when they can be easily found, and I have trouble seeing how taking a link out of an article will substantially reduce the level of harassement that editors are receiving. Fifth, NPOV is non-negotiable and is the soul of Wikipedia. We cannot alter article content simply to protect editors. And yes, tampering with article space to handle our feuds is ruining the project. JoshuaZ 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thuran, you seem to be assuming that there are any "attack sites" that meet the criteria in WP:EL, because those are the links JoshuaZ is supporting. So, is it your position that outing sites are reliable sources? That's interesting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, Thuran! Now I see-- JoshuaZ _SUPPORTS_ the harassment sites. No wonder he's been arguing for NPOV-- here all along I thought it was cause he cared about NPOV. But in reality, he only was supporting NPOV as part of his plot to endorse harassment. <scooby doo mode> Well I guess that just about wraps up this groovy mystery except for one thing. Let's find out who you really are "Mr. JoshuaZ"... <rip off mask> DANIEL BRANDT!!?! Wow.. And he would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids, ThuranX.

Which is to say-- I really can't hear "X opposes BADSITES because he SUPPORTS HARASSMENT!!!" anymore without lapsing into fits of giggles.--Alecmconroy 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm being serious here, and you're making scooby doo jokes? If you don't think this is serious, go do somethign else on the project.ThuranX 03:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Thuranx, but when you accuse JoshuaZ of secretly supporting harassment, you're not being serious. I could go through a rather colorful list of adjectives and nouns describing what you MIGHT be being when you sling such paranoid persona attacks, but "serious" isn't among them. If you want to be taken seriously, make serious comments. But when you blindly throw out "You are just trying to support harassment, aren't you!" you're, well, flailing around blindly, like a Velma who's lost her glasses <grin> --Alecmconroy 03:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely serious. He's not interested in solving problems, but in perpetuating them. It is that simple. I made serious comments. I said that the current attitude 'anything goes' isn't working, but the immediate response was that i'm crazy for thinking that, and it's gone downhill from there with you pro-attack people, and yes, I know what I'm saying, PRO-ATTACK people, ganging up on those of us who want to see editors protected from real world harrassment. GTBacchus, you, JoshuaZ, all think that it's ok to harrass and be harrassed in the real world. I don't. saying so on this page, however, is unpopular enough that you're all hitting my talk page to tell me how wrong I am to respect other people. ThuranX 04:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, things are rarely simple. We are trying to work together to find a solution here. No one thinks that harassement is good, or that it should be tolerated. The question is how do we respond to it and what prices are we willing to pay for what gains? Please keep in mind that we are all Wikipedians, part of the same community with the same goals. When one of us is harassed or harmed, the bell tolls for us all. Disagreeing with you about how to handle things doesn't mean we endorse harassment or that we are evil or babykillers or Sith Lords any more than you are. Reasonable people can disagree about how to approach things. JoshuaZ 04:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, you seem to support a policy that would lead to worse harassment for our editors. Why do you support harassment? Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anything goes" is not accurate anyway, unless you have some some diff of someone saying "I'm cool with linking to (outing/harassment site)". I guess that's all I've got to say, maybe step back and re-read this stuff ThuranX. Milto LOL pia 05:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope you'll be interested in finding some common ground ThuranX, and I have to echo concerns above that you may be disrupting discussion, not moving it forward. Do you think a link to michaelmoore.com should always remain on his article page? I hope the answer is yes, and I hope you'll support all of our efforts to create a well balanced policy / guideline to help editors tread the fine line between compassion and supression. Privatemusings 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who supports blocking attack sites is obstructing consensus. got it. I'll go now. ThuranX 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh relax. I thought it was funny, and I suspect others did as well. Having a sense of humor doesn't make someone unable to participate (this seems to be a worrying trend in general in Wikipedia to take ourselves more and more seriously and insist everyone does, but that's a rant for another time). I'm tempted to ask if you'll tolerate others humor in exchange for a scooby snack, but I doubt you'll like that. JoshuaZ 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And I quote: "Anything that restricts links in article space is for many editors a non-starter." I was going to say more, but it doesn't matter. JoshuaZ can't remember what he said, and so there's no point in continuing. Thanks to NYBrad for trying, but it's clear that the consensus is no one cares about harrassments and outings. ThuranX 03:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh Thuran, that's not true at all. You're obviously free to leave for happier climes, but don't lie to yourself that it's because editors here don't care about harassment. If you can stay calm, and not attribute false conclusions to editors (who as you've seen get quite annoyed) then you'll no doubt be able to contribute usefully. Take care regardless. Privatemusings 03:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NYB, your proposal is more or less what we already have at WP:BADLINKS. The only real difference is the understanding that an editor who violates WP:COI opens themselves up criticism which reveals who they really are, and at that point it's not in the interest of the community to whitewash it. -- 146.115.58.152 01:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly can see the resemblance in the policies, though the approaches to the wording are different. Tomorrow when I'm more awake I'll take a look at how the current wording on that page plays out in specific circumstances. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded the call to take this discussion to Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Whatever we come up with is going to be long enough that a second page is useful, and though NYB's intentions are unimpeachable (nay, even heroic) , I think NPA has had just a little too much of people inserting brand new texts directly into the page before they've gotten consensus. I'd like to see us back up get NPA back to a consensus state, and meanwhile we can slowly build a new policy on the LinkingtoHarassment issue on another page, going "by the book", as it were-- getting consensus for it BEFORE it's a declared policy. --Alecmconroy 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thirded / Concur (or did I suggest it in the first place? damn these long threads....) I believe WP:PROBLEMLINKS to be the appropriate forum for discussion, and it will be great to find a way to stop the disruption here. Privatemusings 03:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I'm not going to leave this on ppl's talk pages and have it taken the wrong way, but I've brought this page up at ANI [17] Milto LOL pia 22:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No consensus in my view

There's no consensus in my view for the section in question. The note regarding the ArbCom case, and new policy proposal should stay, and the text should be removed. Consensus is not required to remove the section, it must be evident for it to stay. Privatemusings 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Existing policies?

I've said it a dozen times, but maybe one more; can we all agree that linking to personally identifying info should be treated the same as posting the info directly to Wikipedia, linking for harassment should be treated the same as on-wiki harassment, linking to personal attacks should be treated the same as quoting the personal attacks directly, et cetera? I've never understood why there would be any need to re-create every one of our behavioural guidelines from the ground up separately for 'external links'. It is all the same nonsense which we have been dealing with since day one... the fact that it is placed one click away makes no difference whatsoever. Just go back to our old bedrock consensus policies on user behaviour with the, fairly obvious IMO, understanding that these prohibitions apply to nasty things done with external links too. There is no appreciable difference between telling someone, "You're a jerk. A complete kneebiter" on Wikipedia vs giving them a link telling them that. We've got long-standing procedures for dealing with that. Why do we need different procedures if there is a click required before you get to the nastiness? --CBD 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Except perhaps in the case of editors who are themselves notable public figures, I don't think there's much dispute how to deal with links that put the Wikipedia reader one click away from a page that harasses an editor. I think the broader disagreement is how to deal with links that put the user two or three clicks away. Newyorkbrad 01:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Many editors find restricting links in article space to be unacceptable even if it is one click away. JoshuaZ 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just deal with on a case-by-case basis? You're never going to get a policy which governs all possible sites, or configurations of sites, or users, or situations. Part of the context should be the intent behind the link; the THF/Michael Moore debacle comes to mind in this respect. Many of the michaelmoore.com links which were removed had (1) nothing to do with the privacy violation and (2) were good-faith contributions to articles. Only if they were immediately present to the personal attack would they be relevant enough to remove, and only possibly. --Haemo 01:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with dealing things on a case by case basis. I mean, the vast majority of the time, we deal with obvious trolling just fine. I've removed many links that trolls have put on talkpages or elsewhere. The bottom line is that we deal with trolling effectively without this sort of policy. JoshuaZ 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

To refocus: What do you do with part of a policy that lacks consensus?

To refocus the issue. The main issue on THIS page is about the edit war we experienced today:

• A number of editors claimed that since there aren't ANY policies on this matter that have achieved consensus, NPA#EL, by virtue of its current inclusion on the page, is de facto policy, and therefore should remain in the NPA policy page.

• A different group of editors argues that since policy pages must reflect consensus, NPA#EL (which does not have consensus) should be removed from this page.

That's the heart of the current dispute-- a behavioral question, rather than a policy one. Is it appropriate to repeatedly reinsert text that lacks consensus into a policy page?

Meanwhile, there's a whole second question: "What SHOULD a future policy look like? The epicenter for that discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment. (with lots of splintering and overlap as usual). --Alecmconroy 03:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This one's easy. No consensus = remove. I agree that discussion about any ongoing policy should head to the proposal page, and hope that we can leave poor old NPA alone when the protection expires, and the awkward debate has moved on to that page. Privatemusings 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom's final decision

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites - please update your jargon/update catch-phrases from the asinine MONGO decision in your brains accordingly.

In all seriousness, let's use this as a guide as it's actually pretty well put together in my opinion. Milto LOL pia 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)